Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

HUMBER BRIDGE BILL (By Order)

Read a Second time and committed.

NORTH DEVON WATER BILL (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Wednesday next.

PORTSMOUTH CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Read a Second time and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF DEFENCE

N.A. 39 Aircraft

Mr. Wall: asked the Minister of Defence whether he will make a further statement about the use of the N.A. 39 aircraft by the Royal Air Force.

The Minister of Defence (Mr. Duncan Sandys): I would refer my hon. Friend to the full answers given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air on 28th January.

Mr. Wall: Can my right hon. Friend say when this new R.A.F. aircraft will be in the air? Will it be available by the mid-'sixties? As the N.A. 39 is based on a new concept of air warfare, does not my right hon. Friend think it would be wise to have a small order for these aircraft so that the R.A.F. can gain experience of this type?

Mr. Sandys: As my hen. Friend says, this aeroplane is planned to go into service in the mid-'sixties. It would hopelessly delay things if we were to wait for production of a certain number of the N.A. 39 before going ahead to make this other new aircraft, the T.S.R. 2.

Hertford Hospital, Paris

Mr. Fernyhough: asked the Minister of Defence what stops have been taken to reduce the running costs of the 60-bed Hertford British Hospital in Paris following upon recommendations of the Committee of Public Accounts.

Mr. Sandys: Some small reductions in staff have bean made. The size of the hospital staff is, however, governed by the range of facilities and treatment that have to be provided rather than by the number of patients to be treated. So long as the hospital is maintained in its present form, I see no prospect of appreciably reducing costs. I am, therefore, examining the practicability of finding some less expensive method of providing medical treatment for British Service personnel in the Paris area.

Mr. Fernyhough: I would be the last person in the world to grudge any funds going to the sick, but does not the right hon. Gentleman think that a cost of £60 per bed per week is really excessive? Could we not make some reciprocal arrangements with the French so that any British personnel who are really ill can be given the best facilities available in French hospitals? I am quite sure that that could be done much more cheaply than on the present basis.

Mr. Sandys: That is precisely what I am examining at the moment. The present arrangements are undoubtedly hopelessly uneconomic.

Landing Craft

Mr. Wall: asked the Minister of Defence whether sufficient modern shipping is now available for lifting tanks and heavy vehicles from the British Isles and landing them on open beaches elsewhere.

Mr. Sandys: Without knowing precisely what amphibious operations we might have to undertake in the future, it is difficult to define what is sufficient, but I consider that we are maintaining a reasonable number of specialised ships of this kind.

Mr. Wall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the class of ships of the special type that were built during the war are now too slow and could not face an ocean voyage, such as round the Cape? What


is the use of spending millions on new tanks if we cannot take them out of the country? As amphibious operations are the special responsibility of my right hon. Friend's Department, would he look at this again?

Mr. Sandys: I do not altogether accept what my hon. Friend says. The vessels we possess still have a number of years of useful life. The time to scrap them has not yet come, but that does not mean that we are not making plans to replace them in due course.

Nuclear Weapons

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Minister of Defence if he will make a statement on tactical atomic bombs, explaining in what circumstances they might be used, the current expenditure on them, their kiloton power, and area of destruction; and to what extent it is intended to increase the present stock.

Mr. Mellish: asked the Minister of Defence what new arrangements have been made in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation to ensure the issue of clear political directives to the military commanders on the use of nuclear weapons.

Mr. Hale: asked the Minister of Defence, (1) what thermonuclear or atomic weapons are now classified as strategic, tactical and defensive; and in which cases is special cabinet, or ministerial or supreme headquarters authority required for their use;
(2) what is the present estimated maximum area of total destruction for strategic and tactical thermonuclear and atomic weapons, respectively.

Mr. Sandys: The question whether a weapon is being used in a strategic or a tactical rôle depends not upon its explosive power, but upon the nature and location of the target. I have no fresh information to give the House about the size of our stock of nuclear weapons or about their cost and explosive power, or about the procedure for authorising their use.

Mr. Allaun: Does the Minister seriously believe that a British atom bomb could be dropped without starting a hydrogen bomb war; or that the potential enemy would have the time to measure the area of devastation before deciding

the nature of the bomb responsible for it? Their standard of defining a tactical bomb might differ from ours.

Mr. Sandys: I think the hon. Gentleman prepared his supplementary question before he heard my reply, in which I made it clear that there is no way of drawing a line between what is a tactical and what is a strategic weapon except in relation to the target against which it is used. If, for example, an H.E. bomb were to be dropped on Moscow I would consider that to be a strategic weapon.

Mr. Mellish: Surely, the potential of these weapons is so tremendous that the whole question of directives given to military commanders in the field is of paramount importance. Can we not have an assurance from the Minister that a clear directive is in existence that these weapons cannot and must not be used until political permission has been obtained? After all, some of these tactical weapons have two and a half times the power of the bomb that was dropped over Hiroshima. Surely we must have political command concerning this.

Mr. Sandys: Again, I would not distinguish between the two classes of weapons. Naturally, there are proper arrangements for ensuring that these weapons are not loosed off without due consideration.

Mr. Mellish: Are there proper arrangements? What are they?

Mr. G. Brown: It is difficult at first sight to understand why the Minister has joined Questions Nos. 6 and 36, which deal with entirely different situations. I wish to ask a supplementary question on Question No. 36. Is it not a fact that there were no clear political directives to the military commanders at S.H.A.P.E. as recently as a few months ago as to who would decide the weapons to be used in the event of a conflict and about who retained effective control over any decision to bring any kind of nuclear weapon into play? Question No. 36 asks the Minister whether any clear political directives have now been given. As I understand the right hon. Gentleman to be saying that they do exist, they must be new, because they did not exist formerly. Will he tell the House what these clear political directives are?

Mr. Sandys: It is not a matter to be discussed in public. The right hon. Gentleman should not assume that he is in possession of all the facts.

Mr. Brown: That is the whole point of asking Questions. If I were in possession of the whole of the facts, I would not need to ask. This is not a private game for the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, but involves all the rest of us in Western Europe. On behalf of people who will be affected, am I not entitled to ask what political directives the Ministers in N.A.T.O. have Issued to the military commanders in the field?

Mr. Sandys: All I am saying is that it would be very helpful to anybody who was planning an act of aggression against the West to have just that information.

Mr. Bevan: It would be exceedingly helpful to us also if we had confidence in the right hon. Gentleman's clarity of mind. In the first instance he told us that there would be directives about these weapons. At the same time he said that it was not easy to define the weapons. In Question No. 6 he was asked to state the destructive power of the tactical atomic weapon. He has not told the House. He has not defined a tactical atomic weapon as against a strategic weapon, although he thinks that he has special directives for categories which he is unable to define.

Mr. Sandys: I will not comment on the right hon. Gentleman's clarity of mind as revealed in his question. [Interruption.] He suggested that I was not very clear in my own mind. I thought I had made it quite clear that there was no possible definition in terms of explosive power as between a tactical and a strategic weapon. It depends on the purpose for which it is used and the target against which it is used. The reason why I coupled the two Questions together was that they were coupled also with Question No. 3, which was not called because the hon. Member for Oldham. West (Mr. Hale) was not present. This Question dealt with both these subjects and it was difficult to separate them.

Mr. Bevan: Is the Minister aware that the statement he has made to the House is not supported by any general; and that the generals have indeed defined, with respect both to explosive power and

to target areas, what they consider to be tactical atomic weapons as against strategic weapons? The right hon. Gentleman's answer makes nonsense.

Mr. Sandys: I am glad to hear that for the first time the right hon. Gentleman always regards what generals say as gospel truth.

Mr. Mellish: In view of the thoroughly unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment and shall hope to get some information.

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Defence whether it is still the Government's policy, as laid down in paragraphs 12 and 23 of the 1958 Defence White Paper, to use strategic nuclear weapons against a major attack with conventional arms involving any country covered by the collective defence provisions of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, South-East Asia Treaty Organisation, and the Bagdad Pact.

Mr. Harold Davies: asked the Minister of Defence to what extent the Government still base their defence policy on the principle that the West can and should rely for its defence primarily upon the deterrent effect of its stockpile of nuclear weapons and its capacity to deliver them.

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Minister of Defence whether, in view of the opinion expressed by Supreme Headquarters, Allied Powers in Europe, at the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Conference last December, to the effect that if tactical atomic weapons were used on opposite sides in a local conflict the result would be a nuclear world war, he has now modified the policy, announced in the 1956 and 1957 Defence White Papers, of using the Royal Air Force armed with tactical atomic weapons to help put down alleged Communist or alleged nationalist risings in the territories of countries whose rulers ask for such assistance.

Mr. Rankin: asked the Minister of Defence whether it is still the Government's policy, as declared in the Defence White Paper, 1958, to resort to strategic nuclear weapons against what they deem to be a major attack with conventional arms against a North Atlantic Treaty Organisation or Bagdad Pact country in


Europe or the Middle East or against a South-East Asia Treaty Organisation country in the Far East.

Mr. W. Griffiths: asked the Minister of Defence whether it is still part of the Government's defence policy, as proclaimed in the 1956 and 1957 Defence White Papers, to use British forces, including the Royal Air Force armed with tactical atomic weapons, against subversion, whether allegedly Communist, or allegedly Nationalist, in the territories of other countries.

Mr. Sandys: I have no new statement to make about the policy of H.M. Government in regard to the use of nuclear weapons.

Mr. Swingler: Does that mean that the 1958 White Paper stands? Has the Minister reflected on this policy? Does he not now consider that it is a policy of utter madness for this country to threaten to initiate hydrogen bomb warfare, which would be suicide for these islands? Is that not a policy of lunacy?

Mr. Sandys: If it is a policy of lunacy, that lunacy is widely spread. [Interruption.] I do not believe it to be lunacy. I believe that it is because of the existence of the nuclear deterrent during these past years that we have had a reasonable prospect of peace in the free world.

Mr. Rankin: Is the Minister telling us that he accepts a policy, and proposes to apply it if necessary, that will result in the obliteration of these islands? Is that what he is determined upon?

Mr. Sandys: I really do not know what the hon. Member is talking about. He seems to suggest that we have enunciated a policy of aggression.

Mr. Rankin: Has the Minister read Question No. 18, which appears in my name?

Mr. Sandys: I have read all these Questions and almost every one of them contains an inaccurate summarising of the White Paper.

Mr. Rankin: Where?

Mr. G. Brown: Is the Minister aware that every time since 1957 when he has tried to meet requests for information in the House on nuclear weapons he has retired into both this obtuseness and this

rudeness? Is it significant that this year's White Paper contains no reference whatever to this problem? It is not mentioned from beginning to end. Does that mean that the Minister has given up trying to clear his own mind?

Mr. Sandys: Last year the right hon. Gentleman complained that we said too much.

Mr. Bevan: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that he is creating a painful impression on the House by what he is saying? We understand that for security reasons it is sometimes difficult for Ministers to give precise information, but we do expect clarity of mind. It was always considered that to use strategic weapons against conventional attack would be suicidal. That is why the idea of tactical atomic weapons was devised. The right hon. Gentleman does not seem to have cleared his mind about the field of operation for the tactical atomic weapon.

Mr. Sandys: I would not myself refer to the right hon. Gentleman for clarity or advice upon strategy. So far as the general issue is concerned, I thought I had made it crystal clear. I was asked if there had been any change in our policy in regard to these matters, and I said that I had no further statement to make, implying—I will make it clearer—that there has been no change in our policy.

Mr. Zilliacus: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that at S.H.A.P.E. last December it was pointed out that any local conflict would develop into a world war if both sides used tactical atomic weapons? In those circumstances does he really maintain the claim of the Government to use tactical atomic weapons, contained in paragraph 27 of the 1957 White Paper and in paragraph 8, subparagraph (ii) of the 1956 Defence White Paper, against alleged Communist subversion or alleged Nationalist subversion, or on the occasions mentioned by the Prime Minister on 17th July last?

Mr. Sandys: First of all, the hon. Gentleman's reference to what he alleges is said in the White Paper is very far from an accurate summary of what the White Paper did contain. As for the statement at the beginning of his Question, on which the whole Question is based, I have made inquiries at Supreme Allied Headquarters. They cannot trace any statement or opinion of the kind.

Mr. Zilliacus: On a point of order. As the right hon. Gentleman doubts the accuracy of my reference, may I read the relevant passage?

Mr. Speaker: No.

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Defence whether, in the light of the facts known today, his policy is still based on the assessment expressed in the 1958 Defence White Paper that Soviet progress In rocket development has not upset the balance of military power and that the Western Powers are still superior in this field and their overall superiority is likely to increase rather than diminish.

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Minister of Defence to what extent Her Majesty's Government's defence policy is still based on the assumption, declared in the 1958 Defence White Paper, that Soviet progress in rocket development has not changed the military balance of power and that alleged all-round Western superiority in nuclear weapons is likely to increase rather than diminish.

Mr. Sandys: I see no reason to modify the assessment of the military position, as set out in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Defence White Paper of 1958.

Mr. Swingler: Does that mean that the Minister of Defence is now asserting, in spite of all that has happened in the past few months, that we have superiority in rocket development? Does it mean that, in the face of all this evidence, he is now asserting that our superiority is increasing rather than diminishing? Is that the assertion he is making?

Mr. Sandys: I will not try to summarise several paragraphs in the White Paper. All I would say is that there can be no doubt that the West still possesses indisputable superiority in nuclear hitting power.

Mr. Zilliacus: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that military authorities, for example, General James Gavin, former chief of the United States Army Research and Development, and Field Marshal Lord Montgomery, have pointed out that it is no longer the case? Does he not think that the safety of this country would be better served by facing these facts in a spirit of realism and drawing the appropriate military and political

conclusions for our defence policy—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."]—than by a defence policy based on the day-dreams of a nuclear Walter Mitty?

Mr. Speaker: I called the hon. Member to ask Question No. 11, which is in his name.

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. ZILLIACUS: To ask the Minister of Defence, how far it is still the policy of Her Majesty's Government, as announced in the 1957 Defence White Paper, to rely on United States protection, since this country cannot be defended against nuclear attack.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Zilliacus—Mrs. McLaughlin.

Mr. Sandys: With permission, I will answer this Question and Question No. 30 together.
The practical limitations of air defence, as explained in the Defence White Paper of 1957, still remain valid.

Mr. G. Brown: On a point of order. Which Question has been answered? I thought the right hon. Gentleman was answering a Question about freight aircraft. The answer did not seem to be related to that at all.

Mr. Zilliacus: Question No. 11.

Mrs. McLaughlin: On a point of order. May I ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker? I do not believe that the answer given by my right hon. Friend can be the answer to my Question No. 12.

Mr. Speaker: The Question which was asked was No. 12. Has the right hon. Gentleman given an answer to it?

Mr. Zilliacus: On a point of order. May I ask a supplementary question on my Question No. 11?

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Zilliacus.

Mr. Zilliacus: Does not the right hon. Gentleman know that in the view of Field Marshal Lord Montgomery—

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order at all. Will the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Defence consult his papers to see whether in fact he has answered Question No. 12?

Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of order. In the commotion, Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure that I heard the right hon. Gentleman correctly. Did I understand him to say he was answering Questions 12 and 30 together? If so, will he kindly explain what possible connection there is between the two?

Mr. Speaker: The answer was to Question No. 12. Mrs. McLaughlin asked it: Is the Minister
ready to make a statement about the long range troop and freight aircraft which is to be ordered.

Mr. Rankin: The answer was the answer to Question No. 11.

Mr. Sandys: The reason why I answered Question No. 11, Mr. Speaker, was because I thought that you had allowed a rather late intervention by the hon. Member. I will answer Question No. 12.

Mr. Zilliacus: On a point of order. Whether my Question has or has not been answered, I have not asked a supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: I called the hon. Member and he did not ask it.

Freighter Aircraft

Mrs. McLaughlin: asked the Minister of Defence if he is now ready to make a statement about the long range troop and freight aircraft which is to be ordered.

Mr. Wall: asked the Minister of Defence whether he will now make a further statement about the replacement of existing strategic air freighters and the provision of new freighters with longer range and greater capacity.

Mr. Peyton: asked the Minister of Defence whether he will now state his proposals for the provision of a long-range freight aircraft for Royal Air Force Transport Command.

Mr. G. Brown: asked the Minister of Defence if he will give an assurance that the requirements of the Army will be given full weight in the consideration of the type of long range freighter aircraft to be ordered for Transport Command.

Mr. Sandys: In order to carry especially heavy and bulky loads, it has been decided to buy a number of long-range

freighter aircraft for Royal Air Force Transport Command. The type selected is the Britannic 3, a freighter version of the Britannia to be built by Short and Harlands of Belfast.

Mrs. McLaughlin: May I warmly thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, despite the long delay there has been in taking this decision, and may I also say to him that it will give tremendous encouragement to the people of Northern Ireland now to realise that this aircraft has been vindicated as being the right kind to be chosen for British forces? May I further assure him that the amount of work given to Northern Ireland will be a tremendous encouragement there?

Mr. Wall: Can my right hon. Friend say roughly when this aircraft will be in the air?

Mr. Ross: And for how long?

Mr. Wall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Blackburn 107 could be in the air in five years? Can he say whether the new Britannia will be flying within the same period of time?

Mr. Sandys: Yes, roughly.

Mr. Brown: Would the Minister tell us whether he is satisfied that the Army has accepted the position that this aeroplane will not have front loading facilities? Does he seriously take the view that the decision on a plane as comparatively as slow as this, compared with jets, is a wise decision when we are talking about something which will not in fact be available in the air for another six years or so?

Mr. Sandys: The loading arrangements are in accordance with the Army's requirements. As for the speed and performance of this aircraft, of course it will fit in very well with the Britannias which are to carry the troops and the less bulky freight.

Mr. Peyton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the decision in this matter will be particularly welcomed because a British aircraft has been ordered? Can he say a word to explain why there has been such a long delay in placing the order, which was foreshadowed in last year's defence White Paper?

Mr. Sandys: There are two reasons for delay.

Mr. Ross: Who are they?

Mr. Sandys: One is that it is a complicated requirement that has had to be considered very carefully not only inside the Government Departments concerned but also with the industry. The second is that we thought it right to try to choose an aeroplane which would not only meet military requirements but also might have a civilian market.

Mr. Beswick: Is the Minister quite convinced that this aircraft is a superior aircraft to the other two designs submitted, and that the jets fly higher, faster longer and farther? Can he say whether this design was chosen because of the merits of the machine or because of the economic conditions of Northern Ireland? If it was for the latter reason, would it not have been better to have chosen the best machine and to have sub-contracted some of the work out to Northern Ireland?

Mr. Sandys: This aircraft was chosen primarily, of course, on military grounds to meet military requirements, but, as I said a moment ago, in choosing it we naturally did think it right, as we have a responsibility to the country as a whole, and not only to the Services, to try to adopt a type which might also be the best for a civilian requirement. It is very expensive to order a small number of aeroplanes for the Services alone, if there is no prospect of any civilian market.

Anti-missile Missiles

Mr. de Freitas: asked the Minister of Defence to what extent he is being kept informed of United States progress with the design of an anti-missile missile.

Mr. Sandys: We and the Americans are collaborating very closely in this field.

Mr. de Freitas: Are our scientists working on this project in Florida, and is there adequate machinery for giving and receiving information and exchanging experience between our scientists and the Americans?

Mr. Sandys: Yes, Sir. Our people are going backwards and forwards, and so are theirs; there is the fullest ex-change of information between us on this difficult problem.

Widows' Pensions

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Minister of Defence whether he will now make a statement on his proposals for the improvement of widows' pensions governed by the present code.

Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: asked the Minister of Defence whether he is now in a position to make a statement with regard to officers' widows' pensions.

Sir E. Errington: asked the Minister of Defence whether he is now in a position to state the improvements in the Service widows' pensions of future widows of retired officers and other ranks, existing widows of retired officers and other ranks, and widows of retired officers and other ranks who by reason of their early date of retirement or widowhood cannot draw National Insurance benefit, respectively.

Mr. Sandys: It will be seen from paragraph 41 of the Defence White Paper, issued yesterday, that the Government have decided that the future widows of officers and other ranks who have already retired should, when entitled to a widow's pension, receive one-third of the pension the husband was drawing.
As regards existing widows, we are, as the House knows, examining whether there are valid grounds which would justify differentiating between them and other State pensioners. This is a highly complex matter, and will take some further time to settle.

Dame Irene Ward: Whilst thanking my right hon. Friend for this small step forward, which will be very much appreciated, may I ask whether I am to understand from certain suggestions which have been made in the Press today that the Cabinet is going to deal with these older widows as well as those who are covered by the Pensions (Increases) Act? Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that we have waited and they have waited a very long time on very low pensions? Will he bear in mind that if he cannot answer the Question fairly shortly, I shall have to try to divide the House on the Army Estimates?

Mr. Sandys: I think my hon. Friend will find that this subject is perhaps outside the scope of that debate. I should like to say that I am just as


anxious as my hon. Friend, or anybody else in the House, to get this matter settled.

Dame Irene Ward: Good, good.

Mr. Sandys: But any adjustment of pensions in one category inevitably has repercussions on a whole series of other categories of State pensions. Therefore, a great many consultations must take place. But I assure my hon. Friend that all categories of existing Service widows are included in the scope of the examination which is now proceeding.

Sir E. Errington: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether, when he considers these matters, he will pay particular attention to the very difficult position of widows who are unable to draw National Insurance benefit?

Mr. Sandys: That point will not be overlooked.

Missile Bases

Mr. Mikardo: asked the Minister of Defence what consultations he has had with the Secretary of State for the Home Department to ensure that missile bases are not sited in areas designed to receive women and children evacuated from British cities.

Mr. Sandys: All the normal consultations took place between the Departments concerned.

Mr. Mikardo: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that there is a complete separation of missile base sites and areas of evacuation? If the right hon. Gentleman does nothing else, will he at least ensure that Swaffham is struck off the list of the areas to which women and children from metropolitan Essex are supposed to be evacuated?

Mr. Sandys: If the hon. Member wants to ask questions about evacuation policy, he should address them to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government.

Geneva Conference (Surprise Attack)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Defence what consultations have taken place between his Department and representatives of the United States of America attending the Geneva Conference on safe-

guards against surprise attack, with particular reference to the carriage of nuclear bombs over United Kingdom territory.

Mr. Sandys: Her Majesty's Government have had full consultations with the other Western Governments represented at the Geneva Conference about surprise attack. These consultations which covered all the main aspects of this problem were naturally of a confidential character.

Mr. Swingler: May I ask whether, in the course of these consultations, the right hon. Gentleman was informed by Mr. Secretary McElvoy that the Strategic Air Command in the United States has now forbidden the carriage of nuclear bombs over American territory? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Mr. Secretary McElvoy said this at a Senate inquiry on 2nd February, which was reported on 4th February in the Manchester Guardian and other newspapers? Will the right hon. Gentleman now take action to forbid the carrying of nuclear weapons over British territory?

Mr. Sandys: My right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal made a very full statement on 4th February last year in which he explained fully what the arrangements were for the carriage of nuclear weapons and how rarely this occurs. I have nothing to add to that statement.

North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (Germany)

Mr. Warbey: asked the Minister of Defence (1) what discussions have taken place in the Military Committee of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation on the desirability of permitting Germany to construct submarines and other naval vessels in excess of the limits laid down in the Paris agreements;
(2) what discussions have taken place in the Military Committee of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation on the desirability of permitting Germany to establish a military base in Denmark;
(3) what discussions have taken place in the Military Committee of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation on the desirability of permitting Germany to engage, either alone or in conjunction with other members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, in research and experimentation in ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons.

Mr. Sandys: The proceedings of the Military Committee of N.A.T.O. are confidential.

Mr. Warbey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he cannot hide behind that, firstly, because these proposals have been fully discussed and disclosed in the Press, and secondly, because the House and the country have a right to know what is the Government's policy in these very serious matters? Are the Government now conniving at the policy of illicitly rebuilding German military power, as their predecessors did in 1935? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that following such a policy today may have disastrous consequences similar to the consequences that followed it in the days of Hitler?

Mr. Sandys: I think the hon. Gentleman is getting worked up about something which really does not exist. The only two amendments to the limitations on German armaments manufacture under the Brussels Treaty that have been made are these—Germany has obtained permission to build a training ship of about 5,000 tons and has been authorised to manufacture guided anti-tank missiles.

Mr. G. Brown: Whilst I understand the Minister's difficulty in telling us in public what discussions are going on in N.A.T.O. and I see his point strongly, nevertheless, if there were any change in respect of the subject matter of these Questions, it would be of considerable interest and importance. If that ever comes about, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will then make a full statement in the House, instead of letting the thing proceed under this cloak of secrecy?

Mr. Sandys: This is really not a live issue. I do not know where the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey) has got these rumours. Without committing any great indiscretion, I think I can tell the House that these matters have not been discussed by the Military Committee.

Mr. G. Brown: Will the Minister accept it from me that at the N.A.T.O. Parliamentarians' Conference in December these subjects were discussed and raised, on the initiative of German delegates from the German Federal Bundeshaus, and, therefore, these are not

rumours? These subjects have been discussed. The right hon. Gentleman says that they have not been discussed by Ministers. We are grateful to him, but we wish that he had said that in the first place.

Mr. Warbey: On a point of order. As the Minister has challenged the sources of my information, may I ask whether, if I send him some Press cuttings on the subject,—

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Bacteriological Warfare

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Minister of Defence if he will make a statement on the development of botulinus toxin, and other new forms of germ warfare.

Mr. Sandys: I have nothing to add to the reply which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply gave on 26th January.

Mr. Allaun: But is the Minister aware that his right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply said that this work is nearly entirely defensive? Even if only 1 per cent. were offensive, does he not think that it is 1 per cent. too much and should be stopped immediately; so would the Government raise the matter at the United Nations to stop the whole filthy business as quickly as possible?

Mr. Sandys: My information is that it is entirely defensive.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Will the Minister correct the impression given to the House last week by the Minister of Supply that the Government regard bacteriological weapons as just one more conventional weapon of no particular danger? Is it not a fact that experts regard this as a most dangerous new development of warfare?

Mr. Sandys: I think the danger of these weapons is very much exaggerated, but I can assure the House that we have no plans whatsoever to develop or manufacture weapons of this kind for use by ourselves.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: Is it not a fact that, far from being new, the attention of this country was first directed to germ warfare as a result of experiments carried out in Russia in 1924? Is it not


further the fact that the first Labour Government placed the matter under the direction of the Office of Works?

Rocket Base, Dortmund

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Minister of Defence if he will make a statement on the decision to station the 47th British Rocket Regiment at Dortmund in the centre of a thickly-populated region.

Mr. Sandys: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd), on 4th February.

Mr. Allaun: But is the Minister aware that, whatever he may have said, the people there do not share his complacency and that last week 80,000 Dortmund workers went on token strike against his decision? How should we like it if he did a similar thing in Manchester?

Mr. Sandys: I suppose this is about the same as the people of Swaffham feel. If the hon. Gentleman will study the reply I gave earlier, it might be helpful. He will find that I made it clear that the site of this unit near Dortmund is purely a temporary site, or, rather, I should say it is what we might call a non-operational site. If there were an emergency there is no question of the unit operating from that site. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why is it there then?"] Because it is a convenient place to station the unit. All units are not kept permanently on their operational sites and, if there were an emergency, this unit, like others, would move out of Dortmund quite a number of miles to its operational position. I would add that the unit does not hold on that site the warheads for this weapon.

Aircraft Landings (Fog)

Mr. de Freitas: asked the Minister of Defence what research and development work is being done in the Services to facilitate the landing and taking off of aircraft during fog.

Mr. Sandys: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air yesterday.

Mr. de Freitas: Surely not only the Air Ministry is concerned in this? Are not all the Fighting Services concerned in developing something which has much greater promise of a more effective and cheaper method of handling fog than F.I.D.O. or fog dispersal?

Mr. Sandys: I thought the hon. Gentleman was mainly concerned with the Air Force. I can assure him that the Navy is also examining possibilities of developing a fully automatic blind landing system for carriers.

Prisoners of War (Interrogation)

Mr. S. Silverman: asked the Minister of Defence what evidence has recently been placed before him that Intelligence personnel in the Armed Forces are given instruction and training in the extraction of information from prisoners of war by improper physical methods; by what authority this is done; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Sandys: None, Sir. All training of this kind is in strict accord with Article 17 of the 1949 Geneva Convention on the Treatment of Prisoners of War.

Mr. Silverman: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has made any recent inquiries about this, and if I send him a letter I have received from a gentleman who claims to have gone through a course of this kind, will he investigate it and undertake not to take any proceedings under the Official Secrets Act, or anything of that kind, which would prevent him from looking at the evidence and examining it?

Mr. Sandys: Most certainly, Sir.

Recruitment

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Minister of Defence if he will state the latest available figures of recruitment for the Forces.

Mr. Sandys: Since the answer contains a table of figures, I will with permission, circulate it with the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Shinwell: Can the right hon. Gentleman indicate whether there has been some improvement in the position?

Mr. Sandys: There has been some improvement.

Following is the table:


REGULAR RECRUITING





1957
1958


Royal Navy and Royal Marines






Royal Navy






Adults
…
…
1,983 (17,100 man years)
2,495 (21,300 man years)


Juniors
…
…
3,930
3,988


Apprentices
…
…
447
402


Royal Marines






Adults
…
…
680 (6,100 man years)
1,246 (11,100 man years)


Juniors
…
…
125
114


Army






3 years
…
…
19,607
4,058


6 years
…
…
2,972
16,377


9 years
…
…
1,886
5,488


Others
…
…
1,155
2,963


Total Adults
…
…
25,620 (96,300 man years)
28,886 (167,300 man years)


Boys
…
…
1,955
3,341


Apprentices
…
…
1,121
1,060


Royal Air Force






3 years
…
…
7,073
8,247


4 years
…
…
1,447
1,233


5 years
…
…
2,841
3,823


9 years and over
…
…
2,725
5,394


Total Adults
…
…
14,086 (68,000 man years)
18,697 (101,100 man years)


Boys
…
…
1,946
2,384


Apprentices
…
…
1,447
1,290


All Services Total






Adults
…
…
42,369 (187,500 man years)
51,324 (300,800 man years)

Air Attack (Defence)

Mr. S. Silverman: asked the Minister of Defence whether it is still the Government's policy that, in the event of war, defence activities against enemy air attack must be confined to the protection of military airfields and air bases.

Mr. Sandys: The practical limitations of air defence, as explained in the Defence White Paper of 1957, still remain valid.

Mr. Silverman: Does that reply mean, if I may press the right hon. Gentleman to put it into specific terms which the people of this country can understand, that in the event of nuclear war there would be no possibility whatever of defending the civil population of this country? If that is so, will the right hon. Gentleman explain what is the purpose of this complicated and expensive accumulation of horror weapons, and will he advise the Prime Minister to change the name of his Department from Defence to the Department of Potential Retaliation?

Mr. Sandys: It was made clear in the White Paper to which the hon. Gentleman refers that although our defences could no doubt deal with a very high proportion of any enemy bomber aircraft

attacking this country—probably a higher proportion than during the last war—nonetheless, with the tremendous explosive power of modern weapons, if even a few were to get through it would be sufficient to create widespread devastation. Therefore, we could not honestly say to the people of this country that in the present state of scientific knowledge there is any effective means of defending the country as a whole.

Mr. Zilliacus: With reference to reliance on the United States to supply this deficiency, is it not a fact that recent developments in Soviet inter-continental ballistic missiles have made the United States population as vulnerable as our own, and that in the circumstances the consensus of military opinion is that the United States would not use strategic nuclear weapons on behalf of any other country in view of what would happen to it in return, so that the whole basis of the Government's strategy has collapsed?

Mr. Sandys: The hon. Gentleman should have been awake when Question No. 11 was called.

Mr. G. Brown: In view of the suggestion that the fighters and missile defences


being stationed around the deterrent bases leaves the civilian population completely uncovered, would not the Minister like to consider whether it is not a fact that any interception, either by fighter planes or missiles, no matter where they start from, is bound to be some way off from these islands if it is to be effective, and therefore will be protecting the civilian population as well as the bases around which they are sited? Is that not so?

Mr. Sandys: It is inevitable that, in defending an area, one defends something more than the bases.

National Service (Call-up)

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Minister of Defence whether, in view of the improvement in the recruitment of men for the Forces, he will advance the date for the termination of the call-up.

Mr. Sandys: I am afraid it would not be practicable to advance the date.

Mr. Shinwell: As the Minister has admitted that there has been a substantial improvement in the recruitment figures, and as I think he will admit that National Service is very costly and that after a prolonged period of training the men are not of very great value to the Services, would it not be to our advantage and to the advantage of the men concerned to suspend the call-up at an earlier date?

Mr. Sandys: I must say the change of tune is very striking. A year ago I was told we would not get the recruits, now I am being urged to end National Service a year earlier.

Mr. Shinwell: But is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in this matter I have never changed my tune, whereas he has changed his tune several times since he became Minister of Defence?

Berlin

Mr. E. Fletcher: asked the Minister of Defence what steps have been taken to co-ordinate with other Western Powers the necessary military plans required to preserve British rights over existing routes to Berlin to meet any possible blockade.

Mr. Sandys: Consultations are proceeding with the Governments concerned.

Mr. Fletcher: Will the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, correct the impression which has arisen in America that there is some reluctance on the part of Her Majesty's Government to co-ordinate with our Allies the necessary steps for the protection of the position of the Western Powers in Berlin?

Mr. Sandys: I think it has already been made clear that that is untrue.

Bagdad Pact (Council Meeting)

Mr. G. Brown: asked the Minister of Defence if he will give details of the additional military and financial commitments entered into by Great Britain at the recent meeting of the Bagdad Pact Council at Karachi.

Mr. Sandys: Her Majesty's Government entered into no new military commitment.
With regard to the economic side, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to await the reply of my right hon. Friend, the Foreign Secretary to Question No. 58.

Mr. Brown: We will, of course, do that. With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's broadcast from Karachi, I see that he said, according to the telegram which was distributed by the Foreign Office containing the substance of his broadcast, that on the military side we are holding forces in readiness to support our Allies should the need arise. This looked like something very much more positive and new than has ever been suggested before. Will the right hon. Gentleman say what he meant by that phrase?

Mr. Sandys: It was virtually a quotation from the Defence White Paper of 1957.

Mr. Bevan: The right hon. Gentleman says, as I understand it, that he entered into no additional military commitments; but the Question asks about financial commitments as well. Were there any additional financial commitments?

Mr. Sandys: I said in my reply that I hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) would wait for the reply of the Foreign Secretary to Question No. 58.

Mr. Brown: Since the Minister relies upon the words he used being a quotation from the 1957 White Paper, will he tell


us where these forces have been held in readiness from that date until now? To which forces is he referring?

Mr. Sandys: In the 1957 White Paper we said that we would maintain Canberra air squadrons in Cyprus available to support the Bagdad Pact. I also referred—I have no wish to add to or subtract from anything said in the White Paper—to the availability of troops which might at the time be stationed in the Middle Eastern area.

Mr. Brown: In Cyprus?

Mr. Sandys: I was not referring solely to Cyprus.

Persia (Minister's Visit)

Mr. G. Brown: asked the Minister of Defence whether he will make a statement on his recent official visit to Persia.

Mr. Sandys: On my way back from attending a Meeting of the Council of the Bagdad Pact at Karachi, I stopped off in Persia for two days, at the invitation of H.M. Ambassador. During my stay in Teheran, I had the honour to be received by His Imperial Majesty the Shah and I had talks with the Persian Prime Minister and other Ministers.

Mr. Brown: Would the Minister care to take us into his confidence enough to tell us what he was talking about? The point of asking the Question was that we were interested in the talks that he had, the subjects that they were on and what commitments, if any, flowed from them. Is it true that the Prime Minister of Persia was the one who made most criticisms at the Karachi meeting about the inadequacies of the Pact, and did the Minister enter into any discussions or commitments on that side when he was in Persia?

Mr. Sandys: I do not think it would be a breach of confidence if I said that there is no truth whatsoever in the suggestion that complaints were made at the Karachi meeting by the Persian Government about the inadequacy of the Pact. The conversations which I had were, naturally, confidential, but I think I can tell the House that we discussed generally the international situation.

Mr. Bevan: Did the right hon. Gentleman discuss at all the new headquarters

for the Bagdad Pact? Is it going to be Teheran? If so, is he going to change the name, or is he going to put the new headquarters on wheels?

Mr. Sandys: The new headquarters is already established in Ankara.

Mr. Bevan: Is it the Ankara Pact now?

United States Bases (Security)

Mr. de Freitas: asked the Minister of Defence in what way the security regulations made by him for the British military bases used by the United States forces such as the Royal Air Force station, Sculthorpe, differ from the security regulations for British bases used by British forces.

Mr. Sandys: The security measures at air stations used by American forces are the responsibility of the American Base Commander. The regulations governing them are drawn up in consultation with the Air Ministry. They are not materially different from the normal R.A.F. security arrangements.

Mr. de Freitas: In the course of these consultations, will the Minister impress on the United States authorities that these incidents are quite unnecessary and that if they exercised a little more common sense and had a little less of a cowboys-and-Indians approach to the problem it would be far more effective in the long run and certainly much more welcome in this country?

Mr. Sandys: I think that what the hon. Gentleman has said is well appreciated by all concerned. In the case of the last incident there is no doubt that an error was made, and an apology has been given to the person concerned. I do not think there is any advantage in pursuing the matter further.

JAPAN (BRITISH SERVICE MEN)

Mr. Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether the agreement with the Japanese Government signed in October, 1953, regarding criminal jurisdiction over British, Commonwealth and American forces in Japan has now been terminated;
(2) if he will make representations to the Japanese Government with the object of securing the cancellation of the certificates of parole imposed on British Service men as a condition of their release from Japanese prisons under the agreement of October, 1953;
(3) how many British Service men were sentenced to terms of imprisonment by Japanese courts under the agreement made in October, 1953; how many were sentenced to terms of two years or more; and how many are still subject to conditions of Japanese parole.

The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. John Profumo): As was explained by my noble Friend in another place on 3rd February, the Protocol of October, 1953, was superseded in 1954 by the Agreement regarding the Status of United Nations Forces in Japan, which incorporated the provisions of the Protocol. Six United Kingdom Service men were tried in Japanese courts in 1954, as a result of two cases of robbery with violence committed against Japanese citizens. Three of the men were tried in March, 1954, and sentenced to 3½, 4 and 5 years' penal servitude. The three others were tried in December, 1954, and each was sentenced to five years' penal servitude (reduced to four years on appeal). All were released on parole after serving a part of their sentences and were permitted to leave Japan. Only one of the men concerned remains on parole under Japanese law. The term of his sentence is due to end next month and it is not proposed to make any representations to the Japanese Government in this connection.

Mr. Brockway: Might I ask the hon. Gentleman two supplementary questions as he has answered three Questions together? First, is he aware that I hold in my hand a parole form of a British Service man in this country at this moment and that it is in operation until 8th March this year? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that under this form the Service man is not permitted to travel further than 200 kilometres from his house, that he is not allowed to be absent from his house for three days and that he must refrain from all drinking? As the parole form is issued not merely by the Japanese Government but by the Japanese Government in agreement with Her Majesty's Government will the hon.

Gentleman clear up the matter of the validity of such forms?
I wish to put a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, on my further Question. May I do it now, or shall I do it later?

Mr. Speaker: I think the hon. Member has put quite enough interrogation in his first supplementary question.

Mr. Brockway: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My three Questions raise two distinct points. The first is the point about parole, about which I have put a supplementary question. The second point concerns the conditions of these Service men in Japanese prisons. Surely we are sufficiently concerned about our ex-Service men to be allowed to put a supplementary question on this subject.

Mr. Speaker: It is a large subject. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman might try to discuss it on the Adjournment. It seems too large a subject for Question Time. We had better hear what the Minister has to say about the hon. Gentleman's first supplementary question.

Mr. Profumo: I think I can put the hon. Gentleman's mind at ease on his first supplementary question, though I do not know what else he is going to ask. Japanese law does not apply in this country, and, therefore, these men are virtually free.

Mr. Brockway: May I now ask the hon. Gentleman a second supplementary question, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: Let us now have the supplementary question to Question No. 49.

Mr. Brockway: Is it not a fact that most of the boys who were sentenced to three years' and five years' imprisonment in Japan were National Service men in their late 'teens and early twenties who had returned from the mud, blood and terror of the Korean war and because of violence on one night out were sentenced to those long periods? Is it not a fact that they were starved in prison and put in dungeons, and that the War Office showed attention to their situation only after they had mutinied? Ought not the War Office now to provide some compensation for men whom it neglected during those years?

Mr. Profumo: The hon. Gentleman has asked a lot of questions. I think the first


answer to him is that we entered into an agreement with the Japanese Government. It was not just the United Kingdom which did this; it was an agreement on behalf of the United Nations forces.

Mr. Brockway: By General MacArthur?

Mr. Profumo: It was not General MacArthur. If the hon. Gentleman will look at my Answer he will see that the agreement was remade the other day. It behoves us as well as the other members of the United Nations honourably to uphold these agreements.
With regard to the treatment of these young men when in prison, I can only say that where complaints were received, our authorities went into them as well as they possibly could, and I have no reason to believe that the military authorities in this country are dissatisfied with the way in which the Treaty has been carried out.

Mr. Brockway: In view of the entirely unsatisfactory reply, I give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. S. Silverman: Mr. Speaker, may I raise with you a point of order relating to a Question which you thought was not a proper one to be put on the Order Paper? I raise it with you in this way because I think that the point involved may be of interest to other hon. Members, as well as to myself. I had given notice to ask the Prime Minister whether, in discussing in Moscow the British and Soviet points of view, he will ensure that Mr. Khrushchev fully appreciates that large sections of British public opinion, including Her Majesty's Opposition, support a policy of disengagement on the lines of the Rapacki Plan.
You thought that that was not a proper Question, Sir, because it seemed to place on the Prime Minister responsibility for opinions which were not his and which were not those of the Government. I submit that that view proceeds on a misconception of the purpose of the Question. The Question was not seeking to imply that the Prime Minister could possibly be responsible for the opinions of my right hon. Friend, any more than my right hon. Friend would like to be held responsible for the opinions of the Prime Minister.
However, the Prime Minister had said specifically, when explaining the purpose of his visit to Moscow, that it was not his intention to negotiate, not his intention to develop any particular point of view, but that the visit was exploratory so that each country could understand the view of the other.
In those circumstances, would it not be proper to ask the Prime Minister—who, I quite understand, might be of a different view—whether, if that is the object of his visit, he will make sure that Mr. Khrushchev understands the true state of public opinion in this country, which he can do only by appreciating that there is more than one point of view?

Mr. Speaker: I took the view then, and I still take it, that the Question as drafted by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) offended against one of the first rules of Questions, namely, that to be in order a Question must relate to the Departmental responsibility of the Minister questioned.
The hon. Member's Question asked the Prime Minister whether he would ensure that Mr. Khrushchev fully appreciates the point of view of the hon. Member's hon. Friends. I took the view that the Prime Minister was not responsible for ensuring that Mr. Khrushchev fully appreciated the point of view of sections of opinion, other than those of the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman is the head.
If I am wrong about that, it would he in order to ask the Prime Minister whether he would make sure that Mr. Khrushchev fully appreciated all sorts of questions and opinions which have nothing to do with the right hon. Gentleman's responsibility. I have no doubt that Mr. Khrushchev has his own sources of information.
I do not think that it is the duty of the Prime Minister to advance the views of persons other than those for whom he is responsible.
I should like to refer to the general Ruling on Questions. I preface it by the remark that when an hon. Member submits a Question which is technically out of order the learned Clerks and myself do everything we can to see whether we can wrest it into a form which does not transgress the rules of the House. That happens in many cases and the Question subsequently appears on the Order Paper


However, when an hon. Member adheres to his own drafting and will not accept amendments to it to bring it into order, it is very difficult to help him. If a Question is disallowed, the proper course for an hon. Member who is dissatisfied with my judgment in the matter is to speak to me about it. We may then see whether a general point of order emerges. If the matter is raised on a point of order, there is brought before the House a Question which the rules of the House forbid.
I realise that in this case the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne felt that a general point was involved and that that was why he took this course. I have made these general observations for the information of the House on what has always been considered to be the proper procedure in these matters.

Mr. S. Silverman: May I, with great respect, put one point to you, Sir? May I say, first, that all hon. Members have always been—and I certainly am—very grateful for the assistance which we receive both from you, when the Question reaches you, and from the Table in getting over any difficulties? No suggestion was ever made to me that any redrafting of the Question, or putting it into another form, would get over the difficulty which both the Table and you saw. Otherwise, I would, naturally, gladly have accepted any such suggestion.
My point is that the Prime Minister, by his statement to the House, undertook a Departmental responsibility for explaining in Moscow the attitude of the British people, so as to take the discussions, which are unusual, outside the scope of the ordinary narrow confines of Departmental responsibility. Did he not undertake a much wider function? That is what we all understood from the Prime Minister, and that was why I sought to put down the Question.

Mr. Speaker: I have studied what the Prime Minister said, and I do not think that it involves any increase of his Departmental responsibilities, from the point of view of the rules of order. The hon. Member's reading of what the Prime Minister said would mean that the Prime Minister's duties included giving a tremendous amount of information which Mr. Khrushchev would probably regard as superfluous.

Mr. J. Hynd: On a point of order. During Questions I understood the Minister of Defence to announce that the Foreign Secretary was to reply to Question No. 58. That was not reached, Sir.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on the Building (Scotland) Bill exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Redmayne.]

Orders of the Day — BUILDING (SCOTLAND) BILL

Order for consideration, as amended (in the Standing Committee), read.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Bill be re-committed to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the Amendment to Clause 16, page 19, line 7, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. John Maclay.—[Mr. Maclay.]

3.40 p.m.

Mr. A. Woodburn: Is the Motion now before the House discussable, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: Certainly.

Mr. Woodburn: Before the House decides to recommit the Bill, I should like the Secretary of State to explain to hon. Members, and perhaps to Scotland, too, why the Bill was brought in in such an imperfect form, and why local authorities, such as Edinburgh and Glasgow, were not consulted about the implications of the Bill so that difficulties which have arisen in the course of discussions might have been eliminated in the original draft, instead of having to occupy the time of the House in putting these matters right.
I understand from both the Glasgow and Edinburgh Corporations that much of the usual procedure was not followed, that this was a very hastily prepared draft, that many of the points which they would have liked to put before the Secretary of State were not given consideration in time—

Mr. Speaker: I think that the right hon. Gentleman is developing an argument which is much wider than the Question before the House, namely, whether the Bill be recommitted to a Committee of the whole House in respect of one particular Amendment. I think that the right hon. Gentleman would have an opportunity for his remarks on Third Reading, or on some other occasion. On this occasion we have to deal with the simple procedural point of whether the Bill should be recommitted and only in respect of one Amendment.

Mr. John Rankin: Mr. John Rankin (Glasgow, Govan) rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must propose the Question. I will hear the hon. Member later. The Question has been moved and I must propose it.

Mr. Rankin: I submit, Sir, that there are one or two points to be put from this side of the House on the proposal to recommit the Bill. It should be known that the Bill was brought in on a Thursday at the end of last year. We had the Second Reading then and a week later we were on to the Committee stage of the Bill. As a result, local authorities and others who were interested in the Bill had very little time to put forward their considered thoughts on and amendments to the Bill and now, as the result of that hasty procedure, we are faced with 79 Amendments from the Government in an attempt to try to rectify the errors that arose from their attempt to rush the Bill through the House.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is now speaking about Amendments upon consideration of the Bill—the Report stage—which we have not yet reached. The Question before the House is whether the Bill be committed in respect of a particular Amendment. The hon. Member's speech, to be in order, must be relevant to that Question. He cannot jump over such a recommittal Motion and talk about Amendments on Report.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill immediately considered in Committee.

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clause 16.—(INSPECTION AND TESTS.)

The Joint Under-Secretary of State (Mr. J. Nixon Browne): I beg to move, in page 19, line 7, to leave out from "building" to the end of line 8 and to insert:
Provided that the buildings authority, on application made to them, may if they think fit direct that the expense of carrying out any such test as aforesaid, or such part of that expense as may be specified in the direction, shall be met by the local authority.
Under the Bill as it stands the owner must pay the cost of tests unless the buildings authority, on application made to them, otherwise direct. The Association of County Councils considered that the words
Unless the buildings authority, on application made to them, otherwise direct


were imprecise and we agreed with them that the responsibility as between master of works and owner as to payment of tests should be made more clear. Normally, the owner pays for testing. Normally, there are few, if any, tests except drain tests. The owner may, however, use any usual materials or adopt special features used in other parts of the country or used in other countries, but new to the master of works in the area.
The master of works may wish to carry out much more elaborate tests for his own satisfaction or which may be a guide to other authorities and he would rather do that than rely on reports from owners or their representatives or on technical publications. In such cases it is quite proper to ask that the owner should be able to share the cost of the tests or, in extreme cases, the local authorities, if they thought fit, should be able to bear the whole cost themselves.

3.45 p.m.

Mr. Woodburn: The Joint Under-Secretary, in moving this Amendment, has illustrated the very point that I was trying to raise on the Motion for the recommittal of the Bill, that only now has he got the views of the principal corporations in Scotland so that he can make the Bill accurate and workable. I should like the Secretary of State to tell us why the usual procedure in this case was not followed. Many of the Amendments that we have to discuss today are on points which could have been, and are normally, cleared up with the chief corporations in Scotland before a Bill comes before the House. We ought to know why the Bill was rushed in this way and why its terms are not even set out in proper order.

The Chairman: That would be grossly out of order. We are considering one Amendment at the moment.

Mr. Woodburn: This one Amendment, we are told, has been drafted as a result of this consultation and if I must limit my remarks to the Amendment then I must ask why the Amendment, as well as all the others, was not properly considered and drafted before the Bill came to the House.

Mr. Rankin: This is where we land between the devil and the deep sea—I am not saying which is the devil and

which is the deep sea—because Mr. Speaker, if I am in order in referring to him, has just ruled my right hon. Friend and myself out of order for seeking to raise this matter on recommittal. Sir Charles, with all respect to you, Mr. Speaker said that we could raise it later. Now we are told that we can deal only with what is in the Bill. The Secretary of State must know more than he is pretending he does. Now, when we seek to follow Mr. Speaker's advice, you, Sir Charles, very properly perhaps, rule it out of order on this score. Therefore, I will keep in order by just referring to the Amendment before us.

The Chairman: I am utterly in agreement with every word of Mr. Speaker and am just following out in Committee what he said.

Mr. Rankin: As my right hon. Friend was saying, this is one of the 70 or 80 little proofs which all add up to a terrible indictment against the Government. Due to the speed which governed the action of the Secretary of State we shall need hours and hours to deal with the Report stage alone.
The Amendment under discussion is proof that the Government have had to have second thoughts because of representations made to them, and even those second thoughts are not very good ones. Let us see what will happen. The Amendment says:
Provided that the buildings authority, on application made to them, may if they think fit direct that the expense … shall be met by the local authority.
Hon Members on this side of the Committee are not against the buildings authority being safeguarded in getting its money, but in Glasgow the directive will come from the dean of guild court, which is the building authority. That is a completely selected and non-elected body. So we have the professors of a belief in democracy bringing about an absurd situation in which the non-elected person directs the person who is elected by popular vote.
We cannot subscribe to that situation. There may be some people on the dean of guild court who are there by popular desire, but most of its members are there because they have money. That is the first thing that they must have. A person cannot get on to a dean of guild court if he is drawing National Assistance.

Mr. E. G. Willis: Why not?

Mr. Rankin: I do not know, but I am sure that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. J. Henderson) can add a few illuminating words to what I am saying, if he so chooses. He will be able to give us some idea of what it costs to become a member of one of these ancient guilds.

Mr. Willis: What does it cost?

Mr. Rankin: I do not want to quote figures, but I think that to become a member of one of these guilds a person must put down at least £100. He cannot pay by instalments of 1s. a week. The hon. Member for Cathcart will be able to tell me whether I am right or wrong and, if I am wrong, how far I am wrong. He should be able to give me the proper figure, because he is an authority on the matter and can speak with greater knowledge than I have.

Mr. Willis: Is he a member?

Mr. Rankin: I would not like to say whether or not he is a member. He can tell us that if he chooses. The point is that this non-elected body can now direct the Corporation of Glasgow what to do. That is completely undemocratic.
I am surprised that enlightened Tories like the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. George) and the hon. Member for Cathcart —[Laughter.]—I do not know why that remark should provoke hilarity. I am certain that they will not sit quiet under the indignity which is being handed out by the Tory Front Bench to the great corporation of which they were former members. The old corporation tie will almost compel them to get to their feet in defence of the right of Glasgow Corporation not to be subjected to the direction of any group of people who live not in the city but in salubrious places in the west of Scotland.
Those are very strong reasons why the Government should put up a far better case for our accepting the Amendment.

Mr. J. N. Browne: The reason why the Amendment was not put forward in Committee was that the local authorities themselves had second thoughts about it. As we are trying to make the best job we can of the Bill, in a completely non-

party spirit, I think that we are entitled to bring forward at any time any Amendment which we think will improve the Bill.
As to the question of the master of works and the position in Glasgow, I do not think that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) really suggests that the master of works, who is the person who has to be satisfied, would treat the position differently if he were in Glasgow than if he were in any other part of Scotland.
As for the dean of guild court, my right hon. Friend will be referring to it in connection with a later Amendment, and I think that I should leave the matter to him.

Mr. Willis: I am surprised at the Joint Under-Secretary's telling us that local authorities have a right to have second thoughts about this matter. The question he was asked was whether they had had an opportunity to have first thoughts about it.

Mr. Browne: The answer is, "Yes".

Mr. Willis: Would the hon. Member then tell us when local authorities had an opportunity to have first thoughts about it? The general complaint, certainly from Edinburgh, is that authorities had no opportunity to give full consideration to the Bill before its introduction. Edinburgh Corporation, with whom frequently disagree, is, nevertheless, a fairly efficient body, and it examines these matters fairly thoroughly as soon as the opportunity occurs. I am sure that if Edinburgh Corporation did not have an opportunity to do so many other local authorities did not. We should have a more satisfactory answer from the hon. Member.

Mr. William Hannan: Will the Joint Under-Secretary go a little further and give us the real reasons for the introduction of the Amendment? The Notice Paper contains seven Amendments to the Clause on Report, and the Committee is, therefore, handicapped, because it cannot properly consider the present Amendment unless it takes into account the other Amendments which we shall be considering later.
This is not good enough. Local authorities were not given sufficient notice. The Bill was introduced in one


week, and had its Second Reading in the following week, with the Committee stage following on very quickly after that. Not only are local authorities being placed in a difficulty but, as members of the Committee, we cannot perform our function properly if we have Amendments introduced in piecemeal fashion.
Under the Bill as it stands the main emphasis is laid upon the owner in respect of the payment of these expenses. The Amendment will shift the emphasis from the owner—or the responsible person, under a later Amendment—to the local authority. I shall be happy if the Joint Under-Secretary can dissuade me from that view. Only by considering the Amendments which are to be put forward on Report, together with the one that we are now discussing, can the full significance of the provision be seen. That is why we are handicapped.
4.0 p.m.
Here the buildings authority can direct a local authority to pay the expenses. This reveals one of the other weaknesses to which we referred in Committee, that an unelected body outside the local authority can direct the local authority to pay either all or part of the expenses. If the Government had taken our advice at an earlier stage and recast the Bill—not in the sense of the principle, we agreed with the principle of a national building code—but in the way in which they were performing that duty, the Bill would have gone through its various stages much more quickly. Unfortunately, the longer this Bill is debated the more pitfalls can be discovered.
Will the Joint Under-Secretary address himself to the point which I have made about the full significance of this shifting of the onus from the owner—or, as we propose to alter it at a later stage, to the responsible person—to the local authority in paying these expenses? Unless the hon. Gentleman can assure us about that, we shall have to consider further action.

Mr. William Ross: One of the tribulations of the Secretary of State and the Joint Under-Secretary arises from having the Bill recommitted, which means that they must face hon. Members who have not seen the Bill before or had the advantage of serving on the Standing Committee which considered it. I may

be one who will be harder to convince about the merits of this Amendment than other hon. Members who are au fait with the proceedings.

Mr. Rankin: I can assure my hon. Friend that some hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee were very hard to convince in fact, we were not convinced. It is becoming harder and harder to convince us and I hope that it will prove harder and harder to convince my hon. Friend.

Mr. Ross: It would be unfair for me to say now on which side I shall come down. I am prepared to be persuaded by the eloquence of the Minister that what the Government are doing is right.
I wish to examine the Amendment in the light of the Clause which we are seeking to amend. As I understand, Clause 16 (10) deals with the case where
the master of works or any person authorised by him may require the owner of any building in respect of which an application for a direction under section four, or a warrant under section six, of this Act has been made to cause to be carried out"—
some tests. That takes us back to the question of the application for a direction.
I am interested, because in the Amendment it states:
provided that the buildings authority, on application made to them"—
I presume that means an application made by the owner—
may if they think fit direct that the expense of carrying out any such test as aforesaid, or such part of that expense as may be specified in the direction …
This is rather curious. According to Clause 4, the direction is made by the Secretary of State, I think I am right in saying. So we find that all sorts of people are now involved. We have the Secretary of State who has been asked, so far as I can understand Clause 4, to waive certain building standards. The right hon. Gentleman makes a direction, which covers the buildings authority, the builders and the rest of it. Seemingly, in this direction the Secretary of State is to say what part of the expense, if any, has to be borne by the local authority.
What does that mean? The right hon. Gentleman told us that the building authority might, if it thought fit, direct payment of the expense of carrying out something or other—and here we have a


harking back to the original direction bringing the whole thing into being, in which the Secretary of State specified "such part of that expense" in the direction.
Frankly, I do not understand the administration of this thing. Who is to decide? Is it to be the building authority on application after the test has been made, or before it has been made; or the Secretary of State when he issues a direction that certain standards shall not apply? If it is any one—apart from the owner, who is the person who originally seeks to set aside certain building standards—who has to pay for the test considered necessary by the local authority, it should not be the local authority, but the Secretary of State. I do not understand the logic of applying an expense to the local authority when the man who makes the test necessary, and who makes a ruling about the test, is the Secretary of State.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman to tell us how this is to work and to try to give us more reason for justifying what has been done here. The right hon. Gentleman is being unfair to the local authorities in what he is deciding, quite apart from what has been said about whether he consulted the local authorities or sought their advice.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: I am completely unpersuaded by any argument, or so-called argument, advanced by the Minister. He told us that his justification for seeking our approval of the Amendment was that in certain cases—perhaps in the case of the use of new and strange materials—it was reasonable, a master of works having wanted the test carried out, that the expense should be met by the local authority. There may be a case on that, but as it is drafted subsection (10) reads in this way:
…the expense of carrying out any test to he carried out under this section shall be met by the owner of the building unless the buildings authority, on application made to them, otherwise direct.
So that there is provision for the expense to be met, in certain circumstances, by some other than the owner.
I should have thought that where the responsibility for doing the test was wholly that of a local authority, the local authority could have been presented with the bill. What interests me, if this is so,

is why the Government have gone through all the embarrassing procedure of bringing in this Amendment, and drawn attention to the way in which they rode this matter through the Committee without having adequate consultation with the local authorities.
What is the difference between the Amendment proposed by the Government and the text of the Bill as it is now drafted which makes this Amendment worth while? I am bound to regard this matter somewhat suspiciously in view of the nature of the building authority which, in certain cases, will be specifying that expenses shall be met by the local authority. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) told the Committee about the kind of building authority which will exist in Glasgow under the provisions of the Bill. It will be the dean of guild court, which does not contain a single elected representative.
No one would wish to cast any aspersions on the present members of the dean of guild court in Glasgow. I could not do so in any case, because I do not know who they are. But they are unelected representatives and need not even be citizens of Glasgow. In certain circumstances, there may well be a suspicion that they may prefer to send the bill to the local authority rather than to their friends, the property owners. If that be the background to this Amendment, we should wish to vote against it. But we want to hear much clearer arguments from the Minister before we can accept the Amendment. It is scandalous that an Amendment of this kind should be put forward in such circumstances and at this stage of our proceedings.
By referring to the OFFICIAL REPORT of the proceedings in Committee the Minister will discover that on Tuesday, 9th December, we dealt with Clauses 9 to 17 which were agreed—some with Amendments, but not many. We went through Clause after Clause very quickly on that occasion. Now we come back here this afternoon and have this kind of Notice Paper.
One of the reasons why my right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) gave when he was Secretary of State for Scotland for greatly extending the work of the Scottish Grand


Committee was that it would relieve congestion on the Floor of the House. Well, we have wasted our time in the Scottish Standing Committee on this Bill, and now we come back to find the Floor of the House taken up with these Amendments, which ought to have been with us before, if the local authorities had been given adequate time for consultation. Even at this stage, when the Amendments are brought forward, the Minister fails to tell us who has represented that this change should be incorporated in the Bill and has also failed to put forward any real argument for changing the present text in favour of the Amendments.

Mr. J. N. Browne: I will try to answer, if I can remember them, all the points that have been raised. This is only a drafting Amendment. [HoN. MEMBERS: "0h."] It does not alter the sense or the intention of the Bill. The Amendment is made at the request of the county councils, to make the intention a little clearer.
I would like to correct one impression I gave before, when I said that this was "second thoughts" on the part of the county councils. I realise now that I was wrong and that it was later thoughts and not second thoughts. The point was taken by the county councils in a letter of 20th November, 1958. The Amendment does not refer to the ordinary test. That will be carried out by the master of works, the applicant will pay the fee, and no special charge will be made. We are not, as the hon. Member for Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) suggested, shifting the onus from the owner to the local authority.
The local authority will pay only a portion, or the whole, of the charge if it thinks fit. That is to say, it is only when the building authority thinks fit that the charge is made. The Amendment is intended only to give "fair do's" where, as I pointed out in my opening speech, the master of works has asked for a test of something which is quite unusual. It might then be fair that the building authority should suggest to the local authority that it should pay some of the cost. Only in those cases will the Clause arise at all.
I have dealt with the question of fees, which will not be charged by the master

of works for his ordinary duties. This Amendment relates simply to the case where special public interest is involved. I do not think that there is anything else I ought to answer. On the question of consultation with the County Councils' Association on this point before the Bill was drafted, there was a meeting on 14th May, 1958, with the Minister of State and there was a working party of officials later. Then there was a circular stating the Government's intentions. All this was done before the Committee stage.

Mr. Ross: Would the hon. Gentleman answer the question I raised about the actual context of the Amendment and explain what is meant by the words:
…or such part of that expense as may be specified in the direction."?

Mr. Browne: That was one point I had forgotten. The words do not refer to the direction on top of page 19 of the Bill, but to the direction on the previous line of the Amendment.

Mr. Rankin: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves that point, will he give me a reply to the point which I raised, that under the Amendment the dean of guild court for Glasgow will be given the right to direct the locally-elected authority as to what money it shall pay? Is that the case? If so, does the hon. Gentleman consider it right that money which is levied on the ratepayers of Glasgow should be subject to instructions by the dean of guild court?

Mr. Browne: The hon. Member may have his own views on that matter, but that is not the effect of the Amendment. It has, as I explained, merely a drafting effect. The Bill will have exactly the same effect as before.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Woodburn: I gather from what the Joint Under-Secretary of State has said that the local authorities accept what is in the subsection and have actually asked that it should be stated in the words proposed in the Amendment; and that this supplement to the Clause refers only to special features of the tests which may extend beyond the sphere of the particular item under discussion. Therefore, it should be borne more generally. The Joint Under-Secretary might have given us that detailed explanation at the beginning. Not being


able to follow just what this meant has led to a lot of questions which might not otherwise have required to be put.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) has raised a serious point. While the dean of guild court is, of course, acting in a judicial capacity, it is unsatisfactory that an outside body should be able to pass over charges to a local authority. When the Secretary of State is dealing with the bigger questions I hope that he will keep this point in mind.
In view of the fuller explanation that we have had from the Joint Under-Secretary of State, we will not divide against the Clause.

Mr. Ross: I think that the Secretary of State has had a few thoughts about this matter. I raised the question of direction. This subsection states:
The master of works or any person authorised by him may require the owner of any building in respect of which an application for a direction under section four,…
The most important word there is "direction" and the subsection can come into operation only if there is in existence a direction given by the Secretary of State for Scotland.
Why, therefore, did the Secretary of State not read the whole thing in that context, and realise that it was quite unnecessary to put the words "in the direction" into the proposed Amendment? The Amendment reads quite well without bringing in those words at all. The hon. Gentleman said that this was purely a drafting Amendment; would it not have been better if he had got the drafting right and had not put in this confusing phrase in the direction which, in the context of the Clause, takes us right back to the last mention of a direction? Now he tells us that it is a different direction altogether. Will he not put in a manuscript Amendment for the Report stage to wipe out this confusion?

Mr. Willis: Will the hon. Gentleman also tell us whether the expense to be borne by a local authority under the Clause will be included in expenditure for the calculation of the block grant?

Mr. Browne: Under the direction, yes. I am advised that the wording is correct and that we should not put down an

Amendment for the Report stage, as suggested.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, with an Amendment; as amended (in the Standing Committee and on recommittal), considered.

Clause 1.—(CONSTITUTION OF BUILDINGS AUTHORITIES.)

Mr. J. N. Browne: I beg to move, in page 1, line 15, after "burgh", to insert:
and for any burgh constituted after the commencement of this Act".
This Amendment meets a point raised by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser), who, I am sorry to say, is not able to be here, through indisposition. As drafted, the Bill does not provide that a new burgh—and a new burgh would have a dean of guild court under existing Acts—should be the building authority.

Mr. Rankin: Surely the Joint Under-Secretary of State will say a little more than that. I hope that this sort of thing will not continue throughout the Report stage. Having had a scanty series of speeches during the Committee stage, we are now entitled to more than a few words in explanation of Amendments on Report.
I should like to say a word about dean of guild courts in the new towns. The Joint Under-Secretary knows perfectly well that we on this side are opposed—and for all we know, despite the muted support which the hon. Gentleman is getting from the assembled legions behind him, there may be some unexpressed opposition on the other side—to the composition of the dean of guild court, which is the important thing. The hon. Gentleman has said nothing at all about that.
About two or three years ago, in this House, it was made clear to the Govern- ment that the majority of opinion in Glasgow is against the composition of the dean of guild court. That can be said for many places in the west of Scotland. Perhaps it can be said for one of the towns which will be affected, East Kilbride. I do not think that opinion in East Kilbride widely differs from opinion in Glasgow.
I take it that Cumbernauld and Glenrothes will be affected, and, if I follow


the explanation which the Joint Under-Secretary gave, the dean of guild court in these areas, when they are declared towns in their own right, will be composed of unelected persons who, however estimable their personal qualities may be, are, nevertheless, not the type of person we want to see occupying these offices.
If I am wrong, then I hope that in due course the Under-Secretary will tell us exactly, as far as he can, what will be the composition of the dean of guild court in these new areas. That is something which he might have told us in the first place. It may be that he was anxious to have the pleasure of listening to me again, but he can avoid that by giving fuller explanations when he moves further Amendments.

Mr. Willis: My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) has raised an important point, namely, whether we should continue something which many people in Scotland think ought to come to an end so far as burghs which are being newly created are concerned. Surely we ought to aim at getting rid of this system. It is understandable that there might be quite good reasons why that was not possible, under the Bill, in respect of dean of guild courts which already exist. Many of these courts have powers and functions which are not covered by the Bill, and one appreciates, therefore, that in those circumstances it may be necessary to continue the dean of guild court system where it already obtains.
Surely that argument, however, does not apply to newly created burghs. It is now proposed to create dean of guild courts for the new burghs and to give them powers contained in the Bill. Will it also be made possible for newly constituted dean of guild courts in new burghs to acquire for themselves other powers outside this Act as have been gathered to themselves by other dean of guild courts? If so, that is a deplorable tendency. The people to whom I have spoken think that a building committee, composed of three members, would be a far better body to attend to these matters.
We should hear from the hon. Gentleman what is intended in the case of new burghs. My own opinion is that we

should not continue this system for them. There is a great deal of support in Scotland for that view. I can understand the argument for maintaining those that already exist because of the difficulties which might otherwise be created, but that leads to the question, which should be answered, whether it is intended to allow newly created dean of guild courts to gather unto themselves duties, jurisdictions and powers such as those which other dean of guild courts have which are not covered by the Bill. If so, this is a very retrograde step which we are taking.

Mr. Hannan: The real purpose of the Amendment is not so much to give new burghs a building authority as it is to inflict upon them a dean of guild court. If the Government were anxious to give new towns or new burghs a building authority, why did not they table an Amendment to subsection (3)?

Mr. Willis: There is no need to amend subsection (3). Does it not, as drafted, cover new burghs?

Mr. Hannan: My hon. Friend is quite right. Indeed, that was the point to which my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser), whose absence we all regret, was addressing himself in Committee. In the course of the argument, he said:
…the Joint Under-Secretary is not providing in the Bill for the possibility that a burgh, however big or small, which has not a dean of guild court should ever have one. I repeat the example which I gave the other day, of East Kilbride. The same can be said of other new towns in Scotland which are to become large burghs in a few years.…Those large burghs will never have dean of guild courts, but will always have a building authority such as is provided for the county areas as set out in subsection (3)."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 27th November, 1958; c, 5.]
It is deplorable that the Government should, by this Amendment, seek to maintain the principle of dean of guild courts knowing the strong opinions which are held and the growing opinion that they should not only be modified but, if the Amendments in Committee had been accepted, would have been abolished.
4.30 p.m.
The Government have gone behind the spirit in which my hon. Friend moved the Amendment in an attempt to achieve


a purpose which I cannot understand. Clause 1 (3) states:
For a burgh not falling within the last foregoing subsection and for the landward area of a county the buildings authority shall consul of not less than three persons …
Had the Bill been left as it was, that would have covered the point, which was to establish a building authority and not a dean of guild court. If my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) had been here, he would have been very wroth at the twist which has been given to his argument. He was not arguing for a dean of guild court. He was arguing in the opposite direction and happened to use that phrase. Indeed, the Joint Under-Secretary of State, in the course of his speech, thanked my hon. Friend for drawing attention to the omission of the Government.
At this late stage I ask the Government to withdraw the Amendment, because the power to establish a buildings authority already lies within the Bill. If the Government wish to make sure of it, let it be done by subsection (3), but certainly not by subsection (2).

Mr. J. N. Browne: There is a little misunderstanding. There is no question of doing anything about the rights of the burgh to have a dean of guild court. Under Part XVIII of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947, any area becoming a burgh automatically has a dean of guild court. I remember the reason for the Amendment quite well, because we were discussing the position of the new towns when they became burghs. The Bill then did not allow for the position of any future dean of guild court being a building authority. A new burgh automatically has a dean of guild court under the 1947 Act. By the Amendment that dean of guild court automatically becomes the building authority. That, and that only is the purpose of the Amendment.
Hon. Members mentioned elected councillors on the dean of guild court, but that has nothing to do with the Bill. Under the 1947 Act there have to be not less than two, nor more than four, elected councillors on the dean of guild court of the burgh. If East Kilbride becomes a burgh, under the 1947 Act it will automatically have a dean of guild court, which will consist of councillors. By the Amendment that dean of guild court becomes the building authority.

Mr. Rankin: Precisely what will be the functions of the dean of guild court in these circumstances?

Mr. Browne: Its functions will be the same as in virtually every other burgh in Scotland, bar seven. They will be as laid down in the 1947 Act.

Mr. Woodburn: The argument in Committee was, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) pointed out, that unless something of this kind was done East Kilbride might become a burgh but still be subject to the county building authority and, therefore, unable to govern its own affairs. If a provision of this kind is put in, it will enable it to become a burgh on the same basis as other burghs.
The Under-Secretary of State has now given explanations. He has said that it is not necessary that there should be outsiders on a dean of guild court. In places like Falkirk it is composed entirely of councillors. The misfortunes of Glasgow will not necessarily by the Bill, the hon. Gentleman assures us, be visited upon any new burgh. We reserve the right to consider whether it would not have been proper to have a uniform type of building authority extending over the whole country, rather than these two systems.
Naturally, we should not like to deprive any new burgh of its rights under the Local Government (Scotland) Act. Therefore, we do not object to the Amendment, although we hope that the arguments will be taken into account when the larger question is discussed.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Rankin: I beg to move, in page 1, line 16 at the end to insert:
which shall include not less than three persons appointed by the local authority from among their own number".

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): This Amendment goes with the next one, in page 1, line 16 at end insert:
which shall consist of not less than three persons appointed by the local authority from among their own number".

Mr. Rankin: I shall confine myself mainly to the first Amendment. The second will be dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Maryhill (Mr. Hannan).
The Amendment seeks to have three persons appointed by a local authority from among their own number so that out of the eight members, four from the Merchants' House and four from the Trades' House, who at present constitute the dean of guild court in Glasgow there will be three members of the local authority.
We are trying to meet the criticism, which has been expressed so often, that the dean of guild court is an undemocratic body. We want to bring amongst them elected persons. It may be said that, to do that properly, it will require an Act of Parliament in itself. If the Government accept the Amendment, it will be an Act of Parliament. The argument may be that these bodies are constituted under statutes that are very ancient—in some cases they go back 300 years—and we should need a separate item in the Amendment. I shall not argue that point, because I believe that Parliament is wise. If it is the will of Parliament today that an Amendment of this nature should become law, it is up to the Government to find a way in which that will can be expressed.
It may also be said that the dean of guild court is a group of assessors and that the only person who matters at the court is the dean of guild, who is a member of the corporation. The corporation is represented on the dean of guild court by the dean of guild, and the other persons, who come from the guilds, are assessors and are not members of the court, which means that the corporation has one member on the dean of guild court. If there is one member, there is no argument against having four members who would be assisted by the assessors.
It may be that there is a counter-argument to what I am putting forward, but I have tried to find the best approach to the matter and it seems to me to be perfectly feasible. To assume that it cannot be done would be to assume that, since an Act of Parliament was passed 200 or 300 years ago, there is no possible remedy and that because it is sanctified by age, the existing position must remain. I hope that we shall not hear this ridiculous argument from the Government today.
In my view, there is no argument against the case that we are trying to

make. These bodies are out of keeping with the times in which we live, whether we call the persons members of the dean of guild court or assessors to the court. In my view knowing one or two of them, they have no peculiar qualities by reason of their job in life to fit them for this function any more than a member of the city corporation has.

Mr. Ross: This is somewhat confusing. I come from a burgh and I represent yet another—for that matter, two or three burghs—in which all the members of the dean of guild court, including the dean of guild, are members of the local authority. Will my hon. Friend make it clear that his reference is purely to Glasgow?

Mr. Rankin: Yes. I apologise to my hon. Friend and to the House if I did not make that clear. I am well aware that "dean of guild court" is a comprehensive term and that in many of our burghs the dean of guild court is composed of people who are already members of the local authority. The argument may be advanced that that is also true of Glasgow, where the dean of guild himself constitutes the court and the other persons in it are not members, but assessors. The dean of guild, however, gets on to the council not because he stands for election before the people, but because he is a member of a guild and is selected to represent it on the dean of guild court; and by virtue of these ancient statutes, he becomes a member of the corporation.
Democratic opinion is hostile to that method of putting people into public life. We do not object to them being in public life, but if they are to be there, let them be elected by the free vote of the public. That is what we seek to achieve. I can see almost an expression of dawning agreement on the face of the Joint Under-Secretary.

Mr. Willis: What is "dawning agreement"?

Mr. Rankin: We can see the dawn. Surely, at some time or other, we have all seen the dawn.

Mr. Willis: Not on the face of the Under-Secretary.

Mr. Rankin: The Joint Under-Secretary looked as if he was beginning to think along lines not dissimilar to those


which I was seeking to express. Therefore, there is reason to be hopeful of his reply, unless, of course, it is the Secretary of State himself who is to reply. We will welcome his initiation in the debate. We hope that we will hear something from him. If he chooses to come in on this Amendment and accept the views I have sought to express, we shall welcome him warmly.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Hannan: I beg to second the Amendment.
I should like to refer also to my related Amendment, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, in page 2, line 4, at end insert:
(4) The local authority shall have power to appoint to the buildings authority under the last two foregoing subsections any person whom the local authority thinks fit notwithstanding that such person is not a member of the local authority.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes. That would be for the convenience of the House.

Mr. Hannan: My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) has pointed out the position in Glasgow, in which, contrary to what happens in many other areas, the dean of guild court consists of only one individual and the seven other members who sit with him are assessors. It is by virtue of that office that the dean of guild is a member of the local authority.
We need not go into the history of what happened some years ago; we discussed it upstairs and it would be improper and out of order for me to do so. It will, however, be seen that whereas my hon. Friend suggests that three members of the local authority should be added to the dean of guild court, my proposal goes much further and would have the effect of saying that the dean of guild court would consist of three members of the local authority appointed by the local authority.
The Bill proposes two different kinds of buildings authority. Clause 1 (2) indicates that in some burghs the dean of guild court will be the buildings authority, but in the landward areas and other burghs which do not have dean of guild courts the authorities will appoint three parsons from among their own number.
On Second Reading, the Secretary of State for Scotland made the strong point

that one of the main purposes of the Bill was to introduce uniformity to coordinate our affairs in the matter not only of the building code, but in its administration. We had the opportunity upstairs, where Amendments were moved, to dispense with the dean of guild courts; but since we lost on that occasion we are now making another attempt, to use the Secretary of State's own words, to bring uniformity into the administration and the machinery through which the national building code will be operated. That is the simple effect.
My hon. Friend has suggested that if dean of guild court must remain, we must accept them. In the case of Glasgow, however, surely the least we can expect is that three members of the local authority should be added to the assessors. The reply of the Government may well be that the assessors would simply sit there and say nothing and that the great Pooh-Bah operates. The members of the local authority can sit as quiet and dumb as the assessors. They can be either as active or inactive as the assessors who are already there. There is at least merit in the proposal, and that the least we can expect out of this discussion is that the Government will accept our very reasonable request.
I can understand that, with regard to the second proposal, wherein we are asking that the dean of guild court should consist of not less than three persons appointed by the local authority, that would only be in keeping with the position outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). Why cannot we at least have uniformity in this business?
If I may make reference to the proposal in the Amendment to page 2, line 4, let me frankly say that this Amendment was put down in the hope that the Government would see that, if they conceded our proposal in my Amendment that the dean of guild court should consist of three members of the local authority, as a quid pro quo, we were quite willing to offer that the local authority should have the power to appoint to the building authority, under the two preceding subsections, any person whom the local authority thinks fit, notwithstanding that such person is not a member of the local authority. We were willing to go to that


length as a compromise, and that was the principal reason for that Amendment.
Indeed, to keep our discussion strictly logical, if I may suggest it—though I do not question the authority of the Chair —it would be more pertinent, merely from the point of view of logic, to consider, along with my proposed Amendment to line 16, the other Amendment in my name to page 2, line 4.
These are the two simple proposals. We should have the building authority, and, if there is to be a dean of guild court, it should consist of three members of the local authority. If that were to be accepted, we would be willing to accept that that court should be able to co-opt someone outside. The Government take the opposite view that someone outside the local authority altogether should be dean of guild, the body which handles the building code, and they have eight assessors, but the local authority is excluded.
I have a shrewd suspicion that both the Secretary of State and the Joint Under-Secretary know that our case is a good one, but that what is wrong is that they are afraid to agree to, in this Bill, alterations which, in their hearts, they know will come sooner or later. It was only in the last Amendment that they perpetuated it by saying that new burghs will have dean of guild courts. Why have they done this? They must know that it will have to be tackled at some time or other. Here is the opportunity.
I am, therefore, supporting this Amendment, though with faint hope, I must say, that the Government will agree that the dean of guild court should consist of three elected members of the local authority, failing which the least they can do is to give us the consolation of accepting the proposal of my hon. Friend that at least three members of the local authority —it is known that this matter relates particularly to Glasgow—should be added to the dean of guild court in that city.

Mr. Willis: I rise to support these Amendments, and particularly the second one, though I do not know whether the third is being discussed or not.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It will be convenient for the House to discuss the three Amendments together.

Mr. Willis: So far as the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) is concerned, that seems to me to be the least that the Government could accept. It is a very small thing. Only one local authority is concerned, as I understand the matter, and that is Glasgow. Even in the cases of the other local authorities which have this antiquated piece of machinery, the dean of guild court, which consists of members who are not local authority members, appoints a dean of guild, who becomes a member of the local authority, but all these courts include local authority members.
In Edinburgh, I think that the numbers are even, but we have local authority members and it therefore seems to me that the very least that the Government can do is to say that in Glasgow three members of that court shall be local authority members. This is a reactionary, back-door method of exercising power and influence in a democratically elected body, which ought to be abolished. As we have seen in the history of Glasgow, it has resulted in appointments being made—in fact, the most important appointment in the City of Glasgow—as the result of the vote by a person responsible to nobody. He might even be a person who is not even living in Glasgow. That is surely an utterly intolerable position for any local authority to be in today—that its leading citizen, its provost, should be appointed—or could be appointed—by a man who does not even reside in the burgh. There cannot be any justification for that at all. It is like saying that all our Prime Ministers ought to be appointed by Khrushchev.

Mr. Rankin: Maybe that is what he is going for.

Mr. Willis: This is intolerable and ought to be changed.

Mr. Rankin: The Prime Minister may be going to Moscow for a renewal of his term.

Mr. Willis: Even the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Govan will not do away with it, but at least there would then be some semblance of democracy in this body.
So far as the other two Amendments are concerned, they seek to remedy this position by making the dean of guild


court properly democratic. They seek, in the first place, to make it a body consisting of local authority members, plus other members who are nominated by the local authority, co-opted members, if we like, which is the generally accepted practice when we accept, as members of one of our sub-committees, people whose knowledge, skill and experience we think will be of value. That is the democratic thing to do.
I should like to see it done in Edinburgh, because I can visualise a situation in Edinburgh in which we might one day find ourselves in exactly the same position as Glasgow, whereby it may be that, by the vote of the dean of guild, a non-elected member, the question as to who shall be the Provost of Edinburgh would be decided. That to me, and certainly to most people in Edinburgh, would be an intolerable position.
Certainly, most of the people in Glasgow have supported those who are against it, but the interesting thing is that it is a minority of people in Glasgow who are maintaining this system, supported by a Tory Government. That. surely, is a shocking state of affairs, and the people who suffer this have expressed their dislike of it. They want a change, and, in my opinion, they ought to get a change.
The proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) is eminently reasonable. He says, in the first place, that if we must have a dean of guild court, let us put it on the same footing as the building authorities in the county areas and other bodies. Next, my hon. Friend says that if we wish to have the skill, experience and wisdom of people who are not members of the local authority—and this is always the argument to which we are treated when we discuss this matter, namely, that we can benefit considerably by using the knowledge of these people and their desire to serve the community—if that is so, let them be co-opted, in the same way as are members of an education committee. What is the difference? That is the proposal of my hon. Friend.
5.0 p.m.
What is wrong with that? It is apparently a good principle to apply to education, and, after all, providing

education is a very much more important function than dealing with buildings and deciding whether buildings are being put up in accordance with a certain set of rules or standards previously laid down. If it is good enough for education, why should it not apply here? It works well in connection with education. Nobody complains about it. In education, we have the assistance of experienced people outside the local authority, but the democratic control of the body rests with the local authority, where it should. After all, this Bill is about local authority functions. This is a local authority responsibility. Why should it not be carried out by local people, aided, if necessary, by able people willing to assist?
The Amendments suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Maryhill are exceedingly good. As an Edinburgh Member, I should like to see them adopted in Edinburgh. If the Government cannot accept that, the least they can do is to accept the Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin), which really asks for practically nothing. It is but a crumb from the table, a little consolation prize. It is a very modest request, and I should have thought that the Government would be ready to accept it. In fact, judging by the look on the Joint Under-Secretary's face, I think that he is really prepared to go much further, and I hope that he will accept the Amendments suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Maryhill.

Major Sir Guy Lloyd: I think I am right in saying that, in Committee upstairs, we had the benefit of, at any rate, the gist of the arguments to which we have just listened. They are not new to those of us who have been interested in this question. If I remember aright, the Secretary of State or the Joint Under-Secretary, after listening to those arguments powerfully presented, as they have been again now, said that he would consider the whole issue and examine the case very thoroughly, coming back on Report to give us the benefit of his judgment and to say whether he would concede the arguments or not. I take it, therefore, that he has had the opportunity in the meantime thoroughly to study the matter and to hear representations from all sides. I take it that,


as a result of all that, his decision is that, as regards Glasgow, the status quo shall remain.

Mr. Rankin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Is it the Secretary of State who is replying or the hon. and gallant Member for Renfrew, East (Sir G. Lloyd)? Who is the authority? Are we now having the answer of the Secretary of State?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not know who is to reply. I certainly am not.

Sir G. Lloyd: I was sure that you would not think that that was a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and I should have thought that it was a rather specious and unworthy suggestion. I am entitled to a view. We have listened to the views of hon. Members opposite, and I am now saying that, in my view, it is obvious that the Secretary of State has made inquiries into the matter. He told us that he would do so, and I assume that he has. That is the only interest I have in the matter on that particular issue.
I am interested in this question because I feel that it would be a great mistake to underrate the value of our old traditions. There are those who would despise and spurn them, who would trample upon them and take joy in doing it. I say quite frankly that I am not one of those. There is something to be said for traditions. They should be respected and should not be trampled upon, spurned and mocked at without extremely good reason.
In Glasgow, this tradition has continued for at least 300 years. During that time, succeeding generations have supported it, approved of it and respected it.

Mr. Willis: Not in Glasgow.

Sir G. Lloyd: On the other hand, there are some who have not. There have been those who, all the time—at any rate, since 1832 when the Reform Act was passed and democracy reared its head—have tried to do just what hon. Members opposite are now trying to do. They have repeatedly tried to have this practice changed in order to achieve practically the same end as that which hon. Members opposite are now proposing. On every occasion, the proposal for a change has been turned down. Democracy has grown and grown since 1832, and universal franchise, with full-blooded

democracy, has come in. In spite of that, efforts to overthrow this ancient tradition of the dean of guild court in Glasgow have not succeeded.
Today, we are witnessing another such effort. Again, I hope that it will not succeed. I hope that the Secretary of State feels that it should continue, that the court has justified itself, and that we ought not by legislation to overthrow its present practice and status.
If I remember aright—he will correct me if I misquote him—the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin), in presenting arguments in his speech, said that everybody in public life should be elected by the public. If that is what he said, it is a very strange doctrine suddenly to expect the House of Commons to accept. It is really carrying democracy too far. Are there to be no appointments of responsible men of integrity, efficiency and impartiality to public life and public responsibilities of all grades, unless they are compelled to be elected representatives? Is there anything so sacrosanct about an elected representative as all that? I am an elected representative, but I do not on that account consider myself to be any better or to have any more integrity, efficiency or ability to fulfil a public duty. It is a theory which, for my part, I completely reject.

Mr. Rankin: The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that, if he misquoted me, I was at liberty to put him right. He has heard the debate since it began, and he knows quite well that I was dealing with the composition of public bodies. I was referring to publicly elected authorities, and the dean of guild court, in effect, is a sort of adjunct of the Corporation of Glasgow, doing work which, in my estimation and the estimation of many people, should be done by publicly elected authorities. That is what we are disagreeing about, and I am sure that the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows that very well.

Sir G. Lloyd: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but it is not a publicly elected authority. That is the whole argument. I know that he wants it to be, but it is not. It is a judicial appointment, a judicial body carrying out judicial functions. I see no necessity for election in this case whatever. We have managed for 300 years without it.
The dean of guild court in Glasgow is widely respected. Its decisions are widely accepted. As a matter of fact, 90 per cent. or more of the criticism is made for purely political ends. I urge my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to stand firm. We are considering here a highly respected body with great traditions. Let us maintain it.

Mr. Ross: The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Renfrew, East (Sir G. Lloyd) is more than a wee bit mixed up. He has been mixed up for a long, long while. It was easy to gather from his continual references, with a measure of malice in his voice, to the Reform Act of 1832 that he has not got over the passing of that Act yet. If there is anything he regrets at all in the political progress of Great Britain, it is that we ever gave anyone any votes at all.

Sir G. Lloyd: I never said anything of the kind.

Mr. Ross: The hon. and gallant Gentleman talks about old traditions. Age is not synonymous with virtue. We are quite prepared to accept old traditions provided that they are good and they fit in with modern needs. I wonder that the hon. and gallant Gentleman did not oppose the Bill itself because of what it proposes. The Bill is intended to apply all over Scotland new building standards to be laid down by the Secretary of State for Scotland, the matter being administered, with certain exceptions, by the local authorities of Scotland in every case. Of those certain exceptions I gather there are five which have a partial representation from local authorities on them. In the City of Glasgow, with the biggest building problem in the country, not a single elected representative can sit on this authority which, under the Bill, is being given the stamp of statutory acceptance by the Government.
The hon. and gallant Member has spoken of old traditions. I feel sure that when he was talking about 1832 he remembered also 1835 when a Royal Commission made the recommendation that the dean of guild court in Glasgow should be wiped out. Not a single Scotsman who has any respect for democracy is prepared to justify the continuing existence of that situation and set-up in

Glasgow. [Interruption.] We do not want any Englishman telling us exactly what we think in Scotland. The hon. and gallant Member has a grand Scots name, or has he?
Can the Secretary of State for Scotland justify this position? I hope he will not try to justify the proposition put forward by the Joint Under-Secretary in Committee. He said that what was required of this dean of guild court was men of common sense and impartiality. The hon. Gentleman said:
the two necessities for persons serving on these courts are impartiality and common sense.…I could argue that the quality of impartiality is not as great in an elected councillor as it is in a non-elected councillor".
What shocking and disgraceful words to use. In addition to all the powers which under various Acts of Parliament have been given to local authorities and all the functions he has laid on elected representatives, he is prepared to tell us on this twisted bit of legislation:
I could argue that the quality of impartiality is not as great in an elected councillor as it is in a non-elected councillor."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 27th November, 1958; c. 45.]
In a city election in Glasgow there was a completely even balance on the local authority; in fact I believe there was a majority of one on the Labour side, elected by the people. A member of the dean of guild travelled back from Paris to elect a Lord Provost. I think it was the late Lord Inverclyde. I do not know whether he was a "napper" a "hammer-man" or what he was. [Interruption.] I am told he was a bonnet maker, but I am sure he never made a bonnet in his life. With another non-elected representative, he voted for the new Lord Provost.
These members of the dean of guild are appointed by merchant houses and represent about 9,000 people who do not necessarily live in Glasgow and have no connection with the trades they assume to represent. As a bonnet maker and a dean of guild, Lord Inverclyde came back to Glasgow with his friend to decide who should be the Lord Provost. These men of "impartiality and common sense" made the trip back to vote for a Tory. I should have thought that if they wanted to show their impartiality they would have stayed away. Why do not we drop this farce?
5.15 p.m.
Instead of coming to the Dispatch Box and talking about the traditions of Glasgow in 1605 and these phoney mediæyal trappings which exist only in the names of "hammermen" and "nappers", the Joint Under-Secretary, who happens to be an Englishman, should deal with the problem of building standards. He is prepared to leave that to all the other 180 local authorities in Scotland. He leaves that with confidence to them, but he should apply it equally to the No. 1 local authority in Scotland, the City of Glasgow. I cannot think how any person can justify the anachronism that people with these strange names, "nappers", "hammermen", "skinners", and the like, should get themselves on to this body and decide exactly how the building regulations in Glasgow shall apply.
I represent a burgh which has been in existence for 1,100 years. We have a dean of guild court, but all we have retained from medieval days is the name, and that applies in practically every burgh in Scotland. I think that is all we need. The burgh from which I come was probably a burgh before Glasgow was made a burgh, in the year 1,202. We value our traditions in Ayrshire, but we value them with a certain measure of commonsense. For modern conditions and the application of modern building standards we do not go back to this phoney mediaævalism of deans of guild courts under assumed and quite unreal conditions on which there is no elected representative. How can that be justified in Glasgow?
I gather that the Secretary of State for Scotland is to make his maiden speech on this Bill. He does not deign to come to Standing Committees now. He has got rid of the Scottish Grand Committee and, although we can have three Standing Committees sitting, the Secretary of State for Scotland never appears at any of them. I gather he is to make his maiden appearance since the Second Reading of this Bill. Probably he will tell us that he is a member of the Worshipful Company of Shipwrights. I do not know what he is—well, I know, but the use of Parliamentary language forbids me saying it. Surely he cannot justify this kind of thing.
Of the two Amendments in the names of my hon. Friends I should find it difficult to support the first, which merely gives a semblance of democracy to an out-dated institution. If the Secretary of State accepts this Amendment we shall miss out some of the further criticism we might have to direct towards him, but I suggest that he should accept the second Amendment. That would wipe out all the anachronism while retaining the old lingering tradition which the bon. and gallant and retiring Member for East Renfrewshire loves so much. We should leave that with the name of dean of guild courts, but there would be vested in them new democracy, something from 1832 which the hon. and gallant Member so much regrets.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay): I take it, from listening to the speeches that have been made and from studying the Amendments, that the object of hon. Members opposite is not to ask that the relatively few dean of guild courts concerned should include at least three councillors appointed by the local authority, but to secure that all dean of guild courts should include at least three such councillors. They are not saying that there should be no outside members, but that where they exist they should be appointed by the local authorities. The reason I point this out is that it is difficult going from one Amendment to the other to pick out the basic fact of the whole lot.
This whole matter was very fully discussed in Committee. I confess freely that I might not be completely word perfect about everything that happened in Committee, but, as the hon. Member for Kilmamock (Mr. Ross) must realise, the range of my responsibilities is very wide and that is why I was unable to attend the sittings of the Committee. However, this is rather outside the subject.

Mr. Ross: The right hon. Gentleman will remember that by his ruling on the Scottish Grand Committee he cut me out from attending and participating in this debate. That is why I insist on having my say here today and on his answering the matter fully.

Mr. Maclay: The hon. Member insists on a number of things, and his arrogance is beyond belief.

Mr. Ross: Did the right hon. Gentleman say my arrogance and his ignorance?

Mr. Maclay: I am quite prepared to accommodate the hon. Gentleman, and I think that is "fair does" all round.
The point is that this matter was discussed in Committee very thoroughly, and I have also discussed it at great length with my hon. Friend since the Committee proceedings were concluded. I read very carefully indeed the point that was made. I took particular care over this point because it was one of considerable importance.
The first of the Amendments proposed would, in practice, appear to concentrate on the Glasgow dean of guild court since, according to all the information that we have—the Committee realized this very well—this is the only dean of guild court which does not have at least three councillors among its members. It was pointed out repeatedly in Committee and again this afternoon that the Glasgow dean of guild court is the exceptional one, that it consists of the dean of guild sitting with four assessors from the Trades House and from the Merchant House.
I want to get this cleared up so that there shall be no confusion. The effect of the Amendment would be to alter the whole basis of the court so as to bring local authority members on to it. It is not a minor but a major Amendment. It would, if accepted, change the whole basis of the constitution of the court. I am setting out the facts as they are; I am not arguing the case, and I am saying what I understand the effect of the Amendment would be.
In Committee my hon. Friend, without giving an undertaking, promised that the Government would consider carefully all that had been said and the extent to which within the framework of the Bill it might be possible to contemplate a change in the constitution of the Glasgow dean of guild court. In a letter to me of 12th December, 1958, the Corporation said that it supported the proposal that the local authority should be entitled to appoint members to the dean of guild court.
In the light of what the Corporation said and of the points made in Committee we undertook informal consultations with the interests concerned to see

whether there might be a satisfactory basis for bringing about some kind of change at this time. Quite honestly, I do not think that it is possible to do that without a reasonable measure of agreement. For our part, we have approached the question quite objectively, our concern being to secure a workable and administrative machine which has regard to the Guest Committee and to the various interests, and, of course, to the proceedings of this House.
I must, however, tell the House that our consultations have made it clear that there is at present no sufficient basis of agreement between those concerned in Glasgow to warrant a change in the constitution of the court in the Bill. This is not a Bill to deal with the constitution of dean of guild courts.

Mr. Rankin: The right hon. Gentleman says that we cannot make progress in the matter unless there is some reasonable agreement among those in Glasgow who are concerned with it. Who are the people with whom the right hon. Gentleman consulted?

Mr. Maclay: I say that the Glasgow Corporation, the Trades' House and the Merchant House are the people primarily concerned and who were consulted.

Mr. Rankin: Who are the three?

Mr. Maclay: They are the main people concerned.
In the absence of the necessary measure of agreement, I am satisfied that it would not be right to take the matter further in relation to a Bill of this kind. I know that that is an arguable point, but that is my view.
The dean of guild himself sits with members and not assessors. The assessors can advise, but do not vote. Had town councillors been included, their status, as hon. Members have realised and accepted, would not have been that of members as in the case of other dean of guild courts. They would have been additional assessors. That underlines the fact that to make any alteration in that status in order to bring it into line with other dean of guild courts would have involved the alteration of a body which has functioned in the city for a long period, and has functioned well. As my hon. Friend has said, it has been an important body, and I have never at any time heard any criticism of that body functioning in this capacity.
I am very conscious of some of the points made by hon. Gentlemen opposite on the question of representation on the Glasgow Corporation, but that is another question. I have never heard a word of criticism of the admirable work done over a great many years by the court in Glasgow on this matter of building regulations. I am quite certain that it would be wrong to contemplate a change, even after the most careful consideration—

Mr. James H. Hoy: Surely the right hon. Gentleman did contemplate making a change as otherwise he would not have had discussions with a view to making a change.

Mr. Maclay: The hon. Gentleman has taken the words out of my mouth. After the discussions I had it was clear that there was no basis of agreement among the people concerned.

Mr. Hoy: That is something different.

Mr. Maclay: It is exactly as I say. If the hon. Gentleman had not interrupted he would have heard how my sentence would have ended.
That is the first Amendment which would bear, in practice, only on the constitution of the Glasgow dean of guild court.
The second Amendment, of course, would go further and would involve the reconstitution of several dean of guild courts since it would exclude members who were not councillors. This would strike at the basis of these dean of guild courts as at present constituted, members appointed by bodies other than the local authority, because the second Amendment, as we are agreed, is governed by the words
appointed by the local authority.
There are five courts of this kind including the Edinburgh dean of guild court as well as the Glasgow dean of guild court. The others are Paisley, Perth and Rutherglen.
It is quite clear that to reconstitute these courts in this way would go beyond the purpose of the present Bill. I have examined the whole matter very carefully and paid close attention to the arguments put forward by both sides of the House and, in particular, by hon. Members opposite. Hon. Members oppo-

site emphasised certain points which at first sight may not appear to be completely logical in the present set up. I am not going to argue that they are, but, equally, I am not going to accept that complete uniformity, which may be necessary in regard to certain matters in the Bill, necessarily exists.
I am not proposing to dispute whether the decision of the party opposite to do away with university seats was a wise decision in the interests of Parliament or the country, though I should like to see that type of Member back in the House. I quote that matter only as an example of the kind of logic which can lead one to the wrong conclusion. My own view is that there may be a lack of logic and that certain things about this dean of guild court may not be completely in line with modern practice, but I have never heard its work criticised. It has done the work extremely well. I do not think, after mature consideration, that it would be right to deal with the matter straight away and lacking a measure of agreement as to how it should be done.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Hoy: As this matter primarily concerns Glasgow I had not intended to intervene, but I must say that we have just had one of the weakest replies we have ever heard from the Secretary of State for Scotland. It is true that we have had lots of weak replies from him but this is just about the weakest. It was so completely illogical.
In the main, we are concerned with the position of the City of Glasgow, the greatest city in Scotland, with fully one-fifth of the country's population. We are seeking to give that city the representation on the dean of guild court that is common to other Scottish cities. This was argued with great persuasion, force and logic in Committee. So much so, that the Joint Under-Secretary, on behalf of his right hon. Friend, said that, before the Report stage, he would have consultations to see if anything could be done to give the city the representation sought.
The Secretary of State has just said that he has had consultations with the Trades' House and the Merchant House, and that, because those two private institutions have dissented, the opinions


of the elected representatives of the people of Glasgow have to be pushed aside. Surely, that is intolerable. One would have thought that, in decency, the right hon. Gentleman would have insisted on conveying to those private institutions the opinions of Glasgow's public representatives.
The Secretary of State has made an appalling decision. It is just one more concession to what, even using the term in its best sense, are vested interests in Glasgow non-elected people there who claim the right, on occasion, to appoint the Lord Provost, and to deny the people, through the dean of guild court, a voice in the future building of Glasgow. I would certainly not allow this to go unchallenged, and I hope that my hon. Friends will show their dissent by going into the Division Lobby.

Mr. Woodburn: The Secretary of State was most revealing in his disclosure that he was convinced of the necessity to have something done. It then transpires that, being convinced, he goes to this body in Glasgow—which represents no one but itself—and because it is not prepared to play, the right hon. Gentleman says that this House must not do what the House is convinced of, and what the Secretary of State himself is convinced of—simply because of a few busybodies in Glasgow who object to giving no the power they hold without any authority at all—

Mr. Maclay: The right hon. Gentleman is not correct in saying that I indicated that I was convinced that something ought to be done. What I said was that, having studied the debate, I realised that there was an argument—valid, as an argument—that the matter should be looked into further. I therefore decided to have further consultations to see what, if anything, could be done, but that is not to imply that I was convinced that something ought to be done. Where we have an ancient body such as this, which is performing its function well, there must be more than a prima facie case for a change.

Mr. Woodburn: The right hon. gentleman indicates that had the dean of guild court agreed, he would have made a change. It is true that it is ancient, and it has an ancient name, but it represnts nothing that it represented

originally. If it is thought desirable, we have not the slightest objection to retaining the name. There is something to be said for the view that when a court exercises judicial functions it should be called a court, but it should not be called a building authority. I am sure that, but for the fact that it would have interfered with this vested interest in Glasgow, the right hon. Gentleman would have had uniformity throughout Scotland.
What is the position? This body elects someone as its chairman, and that person automatically becomes a member of the Glasgow Corporation—and the same holds good for Edinburgh. Therefore, an organisation that is not elected to represent anyone at all in the City of Glasgow has someone on the Corporation, taking part in the city's administration—and that includes decisions affecting the domestic affairs of the city, including the selection of its Lord Provost. On the other hand, the City of Glasgow has no voice on building within its own boundaries. Nothing could be more ridiculous. It may be that people not living in Glasgow can decide the city's building regulations.
The right hon. Gentleman said that the Bill is not the proper vehicle for what is proposed, but the Bill sets up building authorities throughout Scotland and, for the first time, creates a uniform code. What could be a more suitable vehicle than this for constituting the bodies to administer the code? The Bill specifies the building authorities and the Secretary of State is bound to admit that, had it not been for the existence of Glasgow and Edinburgh, the Bill in this respect would have tidied up everything all over Scotland.
It is disgraceful that this sort of thing should be perpetuated. It is a scandal that the greatest city—I would not necessarily say the greatest, but the biggest—in Scotland has no share in the authority that controls its building. Can anyone justify that in a democracy? We are told that the Glasgow dean of guild court is an ancient body. My hon. Friend the Member for Govan (Mr. Rankin) said that it might become sacrosanct but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) pointed out, when something goes on too long there may be something more than sanctity.
Some things decay with time. The Glasgow dean of guild court no longer represents the historical court at all. To be a member of it is regarded as an honour in Glasgow, but that honour is now bestowed on people who can buy their way into the Trades' House. It is the back door to the Glasgow Corporation, and that back door should be closed as soon as possible.
We are told that the court has never done anything to bring dishonour on its work, but the fact that through its representative on the Glasgow Corporation, it used its political power to put in a Tory Lord Provost, so turning the balance against another political party, for ever deprives it of the right to claim impartiality—

Sir G. Lloyd: I hope that I am wrong, but what the right hon. Gentleman is now saying gives me the impression that the whole of this business is a vendetta.

Mr. Woodburn: Democracy means that those on the Glasgow Corporation who represent the majority of the people of the city should choose their own Lord Provost. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the abolition of the university seats, but when a university seat is used for the purposes of party politics, the university automatically loses the right to representation. That was the justification for abolishing the university seats—that they were used as pocket boroughs for the Tory Party to send people to the House to give them extra votes here. They were no longer used to represent university views.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I know that the Secretary of State started this ball rolling about the university seats, but I hope that nobody else will follow him.

Mr. Woodburn: The balloon—or the ball—has been punctured, and I need not continue.
The Secretary of State has given no answer and has not justified his refusal to put this situation right. We have put down alternatives to give him the opportunity to see that Glasgow has representation on the dean of guild court as a first step or, alternatively, that the situation is tidied up, but that in either case the local authority has representation on the body which controls the building arrangements in its own town. We propose to vote for both our alternatives and to see whether, by a vote, the House will overturn the decision of this outside body that the House of Commons should not alter the position of the dean of guild court in Glasgow.

Mr. Rankin: On a point of order. Two Amendments were taken together. Will the Questions on them be put separately?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The Questions need not necessarily be put on both Amendments but in this case they will both be put. I understand that it is the wish of the House to divide on both Amendments in line 16, but not to vote on the subsequent Amendment in page 2, line 4.

Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 176, Noes 214.

Division No. 37.]
AYES
[5.42 p.m.


Ainsley, J. W.
Chapman, W. D.
Fletcher, Eric


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Chetwynd, G. R.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Clunie, J.
George, Lady Megan Lloyd(Car'then)


Balfour, A.
Coldrick, W.
Gibson, C. W.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Grey, C. F.


Benson, Sir George
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Enow Vale)
Cronin, J. D.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)


Blackburn, F.
Crossman, R. H. S.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)


Blenkinsop, A.
Cullen, Mrs. A.
Grimond, J.


Blyton, W. R.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)


Boardman, H.
Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Hamilton, W. W.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Hannan, W.


Bowles, F. G.
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Hastings, S.


Boyd, T. C.
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Hayman, F. H.


Braddook, Mrs. Elizabeth
Dodds, N. N.
Healey, Denis


Brockway, A. F.
Donnelly, D. L.
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)
Herbison, Miss M.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. New (Caerphilly)
Holman, P.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney. C.)
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Holmes, Horace


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Holt, A. F.


Champion, A. J.
Fitch, Alan
Howell, Denis (All Saints)




Hoy, J. H.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Oliver, G. H.
Sparks, J. A.


Hunter, A. E.
Oram, A. E.
Spriggs, Leslie


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Oswald, T.
Steele, T.


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Owen, W. J.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Palmer, A. M. F.
Stross,Dr.Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C.)


Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Janner, B.
Parker, J.
Swingler, S. T.


Johnson, James (Rugby)
Paton, John
Sylvester, C. O.


Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Peart, T. F.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Jones, Rt.Hon.A. Creech(Wakefield)
Pentland, N.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Popplewell, E.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Prentice, R. E.
Thornton, E.


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Timmons, J.


Kenyon, C.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Tomney, F.


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Probert, A. R.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Lawson, G. M.
Proctor, W. T.
Usborne, H. C.


Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Randall, H. E.
Viant, S. P.


Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Rankin, John
Wade, D. W.


Lewis, Arthur
Reeves, J.
Warbey, W. N.


Logan, D. G.
Reid, William
Watkins, T. E.


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Reynolds, G. W.
Weitzman, D.


McAlister, Mrs. Mary
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


MacColl, J. E.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Willey, Frederick


McLeavy, Frank
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Mason, Roy
Ross, William
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Mellish, R. J.
Royle, C.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Mikardo, Ian
Short, E. W.
Winterbottom, Richard


Mitchison, G. R.
Shurmer, P. L. E.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Monslow, W.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Woof, R. E.


Moody, A. S.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Zilliacus, K.


Morrison, Rt.Hn.Herbert (Lewis'm.S.)
Skeffington, A. M.



Mort, D. L.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Moss, R.
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)
Mr. John Taylor and Mr. Deer.


Mulley, F. W.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)





NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)


Aitken, W. T.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel


Alport, C. J. M.
Crowder, Sir John (Finehley)
Henderson, John (Cathcart)


Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William
Cunningham, Knox
Hesketh, R. F.


Arbuthnot, John
Currie, G. B. H.
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.


Armstrong, C. W.
Dance, J. C. G.
Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)


Atkins, H. E.
D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Deedes, W. F.
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)


Baldwin, Sir Archer
de Ferranti, Basil
Hirst, Geoffrey


Barber, Anthony
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hornby, R. P.


Barlow, Sir John
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence


Barter, John
Doughty, C. J. A.
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)


Batsford, Brian
Drayson, G. B.
Howard, John (Test)


Baxter, Sir Beverley
du Cann, E. D. L.
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)


Beamish, Col. Tufton
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Duncan, Sir James
Hughes-Young, M. H, C.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Hutchison, Michael Clark(E'b'gh, S.)


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh.W.)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald
Errington, Sir Eric
Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)


Bidgood, J. C.
Erroll, F. J.



Bingham, R. M.
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Iremonger, T. L.


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Fell, A.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Bishop, F. P.
Finlay, Graeme
Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)


Black, Sir Cyril
Fisher, Nigel
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)


Body, R. F.
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Bossom, Sir Alfred
Freeth, Denzil
Kerby, Capt. H. B.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Gammans, Lady
Kerr, Sir Hamilton


Boyle, Sir Edward
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Kershaw, J. A.


Braine, B. R.
George, J. C. (Pollok)
Kimball, M.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Gibson-Watt, D.
Kirk, P. M.


Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Glover, D.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Bryan, P.
Glyn, Col. Richard H.
Langford-Holt, J. A.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Godber, J. B.
Leavey, J. A.


Burden, F. F. A.
Goodhart, Philip
Leburn, W. G.


Campbell, Sir David
Cower, H. R.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.


Carr, Robert
Graham, Sir Fergus
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)


Cary, Sir Robert
Grant, Rt. Hon. W. (Woodside)
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)


Channon, P.
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Green, A.
Longden, Gilbert


Cole, Norman
Gresham Cooke, R.
Loveys, Walter H.


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Cooke, Robert
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
McAdden, S. J.


Cooper, A. E.
Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.
Macdonald, Sir Peter


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)







Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Powell, J. Enoch
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Teeling, W.


Maddan, Martin
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Temple, John M.


Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Ramsden, J. E.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Markham, Major Sir Frank
Rawlinson, Peter
Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)


Marlowe, A. A. H.
Redmayne, M.
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Marshall, Douglas
Remnant, Hon. P.
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.
Renton, D. L. M.
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Mawby, R. L.
Robertson, Sir David
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Vane, W. M. F.


Nabarro, G. D. N.
Robson Brown, Sir William



Nairn, D. L. S.
Roper, Sir Harold
Vickers, Miss Joan


Neave, Airey
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.


Nicholls, Harmar
Russell, R. S.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Noble, Comdr. Rt. Hon. Allan
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Noble, Michael (Argyll)
Sharples, R. C.
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek


Nugent, G. R. H.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Wall, Patrick


Oakshott, H. D.
Spearman, Sir Alexander
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Speir, R. M.
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Page, R. G.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeen, W.)
Webster, David


Partridge, E.
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Peel, W. J.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Peyton, J. W. W.
Stevens, Geoffrey
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Woollam, John Victor


Pitman, I. J.
Storey, S.



Pitt, Miss E. M.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Pott, H. P.
Studholme, Sir Henry
Mr. Brooman-White and




Mr. Whitelaw.

Mr. Hannan: I beg to move, in page 1, line 16, at the end to insert:
which shall consist of not less than three persons appointed by the local authority from among their own number".

Mr. Hoy: I beg to second the Amendment.

Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 174, Noes 221.

Division No. 38.]
AYES
[5.52 p.m.


Ainsley, J. W.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Lawson, G. M.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)


Balfour, A.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Fitch, Alan
Lewis, Arthur


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Fletcher, Eric
Logan, D. G.


Benson, Sir George
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
George, Lady Megan Lloyd(Car'then)
McAlister, Mrs. Mary


Blackburn, F.
Gibson, C. W.
MacColl, J. E.


Blenkinsop, A.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
McKay, John (Wallsend)


Blyton, W. R.
Grey, C. F.
McLeavy, Frank


Boardman, H.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Mason, Roy


Bowles, F. G.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Mellish, R. J.


Boyd, T. C.
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Mikardo, Ian


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Hamilton, W. W.
Mitchison, G. R.


Brockway, A. F.
Hannan, W.
Monslow, W.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hastings, S.
Moody, A. S.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hayman, F. H.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Healey, Denis
Morrison,Rt.Hn.Herbert(Lewis'm,S.)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Mort, D. L.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Herbison, Miss M.
Moss, R.


Champion, A. J.
Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)
Mulley, F. W.


Chapman, W. D.
Holman, P.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Holmes, Horace
Oliver, G. H.


Clunie, J.
Howell, Denis (All Saints)
Oram, A. E.


Coldrick, W.
Hoy, J. H.
Oswald, T.


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Owen, W. J.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hunter, A. E.
Palmer, A. M. F.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Cronin, J. D.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Pargiter, G. A.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Parker, J.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Paton, John


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Janner, B.
Peart, T. F.


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Pentland, N.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Popplewell, E.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Prentice, R. E.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Dodds, N. N.
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Donnelly, D. L.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Probert, A. R.


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)
Kenyon, C.
Proctor, W. T.




Randall, H. E.
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)
Usborne, H. C.


Rankin, John
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Viant, S. P.


Reeves, J.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Warbey, W. N.


Reid, William
Sparks, J. A.
Watkins, T. E.


Reynolds, G. W.
Spriggs, Leslie
Weitzman, D.


Robens, Rt Hon. A.
Steele, T.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
Willey, Frederick


Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Stross,Dr.Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C.)
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Robinson, Kenneth (St, Pancras, W.)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Williams, W R. (Openshaw)


Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Swingler, S. T.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Ross, William
Sylvester, G. O
Winterbottom, Richard


Royle, C
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Short, E. W.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Woof, R. E.


Shurmer, P. L. E.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Thornton, E.
Zilliacus, K.


Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Timmons, J.



Skeffington, A. M.
Tomney, F.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Mr. John Taylor and Mr. Deer.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)


Aitken, W. T.
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)


Alport, C. J. M.
Errington, Sir Eric
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William
Erroll, F. J.
Longden, Gilbert


Arbuthnot, John
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Loveys, Walter H.


Armstrong, C. W.
Fell, A.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford &amp; Chiswick)


Atkins, H. E.
Finlay, Graeme
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Fisher, Nigel
McAdden, S. J.


Baldwin, Sir Archer
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Macdonald, Sir Peter


Barber, Anthony
Freeth, Denzil
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John


Barlow, Sir John
Gammans, Lady
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)


Barter, John
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)


Batsford, Brian
George, J. C. (Pollok)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Gibson-Watt, D.
Maddan, Martin


Beamish, Col. Tufton
Glover, D.
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Glyn, Col. Richard H.
Markham, Major Sir Frank


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Godber, J. B.
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Goodhart, Philip
Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald
Gower, H. R.
Marshall, Douglas


Bidgood, J. C.
Graham, Sir Fergus
Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.


Bingham, R. M.
Grant, Rt. Hon. W. (Woodside)
Mawby, R. L.


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.


Bishop, F. P.
Green, A.
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Black, Sir Cyril
Gresham Cooke, R.
Nairn, D. L. S.


Body, R. F.
Grimond, J.
Neave, Airey


Bossom, Sir Alfred
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Nicholls, Harmar


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Noble, Comdr. Rt. Hon. Allan


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.
Noble, Michael (Argyll)


Braine, B. R.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Nugent, G. R. H.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Oakshott, H. D.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Page, R. G.


Bryan, P.
Hesketh, R. F.
Partridge, E.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Peel, W. J.


Burden, F. F. A.
Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Peyton, J. W. W.


Campbell, Sir David
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Carr, Robert
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Pitman, I, J.


Cary, Sir Robert
Hirst, Geoffrey
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Channon, P.
Holt, A. F.
Pott, H. P.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hornby, R. P.
Powell, J. Enoch


Cole, Norman
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Cooke, Robert
Howard, John (Test)
Ramsden, J. E.


Cooper, A. E.
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Rawlinson, Peter


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Redmayne, M.


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Hutchison, Michael Clark(E'b'gh, S.)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)
Remnant, Hon. P.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)
Renton, D. L. M.


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Iremonger, T, L.
Robinson. Sir Roland (Blackpool. S.)


Cunningham, Knox
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Robson Brown, Sir William


Currie, C. B. H.
Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)
Roper, Sir Harold


Dance, J. C. G.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Davies,Rt.Hon.Clement(Montgomery)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Russell, R. S.


D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Deedes, W. F.
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Sharples, R. C.


de Ferranti, Basil
Kershaw, J. A.
Shepherd, William


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Kimball, M.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Kirk, P. M.
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Doughty, C. J. A.
Lambton, Viscount
Speir, R. M.


Drayson, G. B.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeen, W.)


du Cann, E. D. L.
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Leavey, J. A.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Duncan, Sir James
Leburn, W. G.
Stevens, Geoffrey


Duthie, W. S.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)







Storey, S.
Tweedsmuir, Lady
Webster, David


Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Vane, W. M. F.
Whitelaw, W. S. I.


Studholme, Sir Henry
Vickers, Miss Joan
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Teeling, W.
Wade, D. W.
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Temple, John M.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Woollam, John Victor


Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek



Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Wall, Patrick
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)
Colonel J. H. Harrison and


Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold
Mr. Hughes-Young.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Hannan: I beg to move, in page 2, line 5, to leave out subsection (4) and to insert:
(4) Without prejudice to the provisions of subsection (2) of section two of this Act, the jurisdiction and functions conferred by this Act on a buildings authority, which is a dean of guild court, shall be in addition to any jurisdiction or functions exercisable by that court immediately before the commencement of this Act whether by custom or by virtue of any enactment:
Provided that—

(a) where any local act contains any provision providing for any matter which is also provided for by any provision of this Act or by any regulations having effect by virtue of this Act, the Secretary of State by order made by statutory instrument before the commencement of this Act may repeal any such provision of a local act as may be specified in the said order; and
(b) where it appears to the Secretary of State that any provision of any local act is inconsistent with any provisions of this Act or is no longer required or requires to be amended having regard to any provision of this Act, he may by order repeal or amend the provision of the local act as he may consider appropriate.
(5) The power of making orders conferred by the last foregoing subsection shall be exercisable by statutory instrument and any order made under that subection shall be subject to special parliamentary procedure.

Mr. J. N. Browne: Would it be convenient, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to discuss this Amendment with several later Amendments?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): There are consequential Amendments to Clauses 28 and 30 and the First Schedule which could be taken with this Amendment. Is that agreed?

Mr. Browne: Yes, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. They are, in page 25, line 38, at the beginning to insert:
Subject to the next following subsection".
In page 26, line 2, to leave out:
before the commencement of this Act".
In line 26, after "twenty-two" to insert "and"; in line 26, to leave out "and twenty-eight"; and in page 27, line 1, to leave out Schedule 1.

Mr. Hannan: I hope that I understand which Amendments from both sides of the House are now being discussed. They are all related to the Amendment which I have moved and deal with Clause 1 (4) and the proposals in Clauses 28 and 30 and in the First Schedule. The very fact that the Joint Under-Secretary has referred to further Amendments to Clause 28 and other parts of the Bill shows the uncertainty in the Government's original proposals. It adds further point to the argument which we on this side of the House put forward in Committee and have repeated today that this is a most unsatisfactory way of dealing with the principle of the Bill.
This is particularly so in relation to Clause 1 (4) which provides that:
The jurisdiction and functions conferred by this Act on a buildings authority which is a dean of guild court shall be in lieu of any jurisdiction or functions exercisable by that court immediately before the commencement of this Act …
In short, the subsection says that all local authority Acts and enactments which have hitherto prevailed shall be washed out and dispensed with when the Bill becomes an Act and then shall be restored by the Act, by regulations under it and by the proviso in the present Clause 28.
In Committee, it seemed to many of us that the Government failed to appreciate the effect of subsection (4). The jurisdiction and functions conferred by the Bill on the dean of guild court replace those already held by that court, whether by custom or by virtue of any enactment, except for those conferred by enactments specified in the First Schedule. The position is that local enactments are cancelled except for those outlined in the First Schedule.
We on this side of the House think that that is not entirely satisfactory. I would draw the attention of hon. Members to the exceptions made to Clause 1 (4) by the First Schedule. The Schedule deals with some aspects of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892, and also with


the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1903, which relates to warrants for laying out new streets, the use of roofs and platforms for sitting and standing accommodation, infringements in the construction of streets and other related matters.
These things are placed outside the provisions of the Bill, but all other functions and duties are swept away. This proposal has given rise to grave apprehension on the part of the two principal local authorities in Scotland, the Glasgow and Edinburgh Corporations. The officials and public representatives of these two great cities fear that many of their powers will be swept away and will be lost irretrievably as a result of the way in which the Bill has been handled. No machinery is provided to replace these powers in respect of two local authorities whose areas account for almost one-third of the population of Scotland.
The Government seem to be unaware that Edinburgh and Glasgow dean of guild courts have been exercising functions which the Bill does not touch at all. My hon. Friends are in favour of the Bill. The principle behind the proposal for a national building court is good, but our fears and apprehensions arise from the manner in which the Government propose to achieve that aim.
Some aspects of local Acts remain and are covered by the Bill, but all others are to go, and then the Secretary of State for Scotland, by means of the proviso in Clause 28, takes power to restore them. The position is that some local provisions are cancelled and that the right hon. Gentleman takes power to cancel the cancellations, which is just daft. Would not the sensible way of doing this be to make these provisions in the Bill in addition to the existing local provisions and then to cancel the local provisions piecemeal, instead of cancelling them all first and then restoring them under that proviso? Indeed, so unsatisfactory is the position that the Government, in the course of debate in Committee, no doubt impressed by arguments put forward by my hon. Friends, tabled an Amendment to Clause 1 (5) which partially restores the situation.
Some of these dean of guild courts have powers which lie outside the Bill, to deal, for example, with pavement lights, sewers, chimney stacks, disused fireplaces and the lighting and repair of

common stairs. The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who represents a Glasgow constituency, knows the value to his local authority of these local enactments, because his constituency and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) are the two in Scotland which have suffered most from the existence of these disused buildings. They have found these local enactments, which are now going by the board of tremendous value.

Mr. Rankin: If I may interrupt my hon. Friend, he referred to me as "right hon." Is he anticipating?

Mr. Hannan: I will take that to avizandum. I indicated, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that Clause 1 (4), even with the Amendment of the Government, will mean that a local authority which wishes to observe its dean of guild functions, which it now enjoys in matters outside the Bill, will have to make representations to the Secretary of State for Scotland for an Order which will keep its present local enactments alive. The procedure does not commend itself to serious examination. The local authorities will have to scrutinise all their local enactments to ensure that none has been missed. If, by some mischance, one is missed in the examination it will be irretrievably lost, and, as I understand it, the local authorities will have to seek to restore it by getting a provisional Order through this House.
Edinburgh and Glasgow each has such provisions and I will give an example. Section 76 of the Glasgow Streets, Sewers and Buildings Order, 1937, provides that no one shall construct a sewer without the consent of the dean of guild court What happens in practice is that if a sewer is constructed the local authority takes over the responsibility for that in their drainage system, but such a sewer is not a building within the meaning of this Measure. Nevertheless, under Clause 1 (4) the sewer will be abolished. Why should the Glasgow Corporation be put to the trouble at a later date of having to seek to get a provisional Order through this House when it already has the power? Both those cities have codes which enable them to enforce repairs to dangerous buildings, a subject with which the Bill does not concern itself.
In Committee, when this point was argued, the Solicitor-General for Scotland said:
The procedure is not a new one. It was used, for example, in the Police (Scotland) Act, 1956, in which the Secretary of State had similar powers to save the provisions of local enactments. An Order was made under that Act—the Police (Local Enactments) (Scotland) Order, 1956—in which that very thing was done. We are, therefore, following quite a good precedent."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 16th December, 1958; c. 248.]
With all due respect, and depending as we usually do for the best advice on the Solicitor-General for Scotland, I suggest that this was not an accurate analogy. It is said that there is a precedent for this method of dealing with the situation in the Act described, but because that Act referred only to provisions of local Acts which corresponded with those of the principal Act, the Act of 1954 only corresponded with the provisions of the existing Act. That is not so with this Bill, which does not correspond with the present local provisions, but only corresponds with some which will be retained. The rest are dispensed with. This has given rise to apprehension on the part of the local authorities.
6.15 p.m.
If this Amendment were accepted it would reverse the procedure. It is in addition to the local authority provisions. Clause 28 becomes unnecessary. Orders by the Secretary of State restoring some of the things which have been cancelled become unnecessary. Clause 1 becomes unnecessary. In Committee the many Amendments which the Government put down as a result of the points raised there would be unnecessary. Clauses 7, 8, 9 and 12 are the best testimony, as are the 79 Amendments on the Order Paper today, to the inefficiency and inefficacy of the Bill.
I will conclude by referring to what was said by the Guest Committee on Building Legislation in Scotland on this matter. That is the Committee to which the Government appeal so often in justification of what they are doing. I refer the House to page 101 of that Report in which, in the summary of conclusions and recommendations, the Committee said:
Local Act requirements should be repealed in so far as they are covered by or are inconsistent with the new building code.

That was all the Committee said, but this Bill goes much further. In that second recommendation the Committee refers to paragraph 19 of the Report, and since I know that many hon. Members do not like long quotations, I will paraphrase it:
Broadly speaking, most of the detailed structural requirements (whether at present in an Act or a Schedule or in byelaws) would be superseded by some up-to-date requirement serving a similar purpose (possibly expressed very differently) in regulations; and the provisions laying down the machinery of building control would be replaced by the provisions of the new Act itself. As for requirements in local Acts, we recommend that they should be repealed to the extent that they are covered by, or are inconsistent with, the building code drawn up under the new machinery.
If the Guest Committee is to be quoted to us in extenuation of the Bill, then the Government must have regard to what this expert Committee said in these matters. That was not all, because at paragraph 191 the Committee stated:
On the question whether the subordinate legislation should take the form of locally-made byelaws or centrally-made regulations, we have, after careful consideration, decided to recommend that in future the principal code of building requirements should be laid down in regulations applicable to the whole of Scotland. For the cities and other authorities having their own Building Acts we recommend that there should be savings for any requirements therein not dealt with in any way in the Regulation.
I submit that the case for my Amendment is unanswerable. I submit that the subsequent Amendments can be made without any ill effect to the Bill. I submit that the procedure would be much easier. The local authorities, particularly Glasgow and Edinburgh, which have the bulk of these houses—not merely new houses going up but which are troubled week in and week out with houses in disrepair and partial demolition and partial construction—ought with their experience in this important matter to receive some attention.
Before I sit down I want to acknowledge that the wording of this Amendment is not my own. I was asked, as were some of my hon. Friends, to submit this Amendment on behalf of the City of Glasgow. If the wording does not meet with the approval of the Solicitor-General for Scotland we shall be happy if the spirit of the Amendment can be accepted.

Mr. Rankin: I beg to second the Amendment.
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) will agree with me that the Amendment was submitted to hon. Members on this side of the House by Glasgow and Edinburgh.

Mr. Hannan: I am sorry that I did not mention both cities.

Mr. Rankin: It was drawn up by them—guided by their experts who have studied this matter carefully—much more carefully, I suggest, than it has been studied by the Government and their advisers.
The Amendment ought to be accepted by the Government, because it will enable them to save face in a very difficult situation. The Bill is generally welcomed by all interests—trade unions, local administrations and political bodies—in Scotland because it gives us uniform building regulations. However, the Government, in their usual ham-handed fashion, are making a mess of trying to give expression to the almost universal desire.
The Bill does something unique. It repeals existing provisions where they cover the provisions laid down in the Bill. Every local authority in Scotland accepts that, and my hon. Friends and I do not quarrel with it because we say that where the provisions of the Bill deal with functions and jurisdictions which are already expressed in local Acts the provisions of the Bill should prevail. There is no argument about that. Then the Government go on to do something which is unbelievably stupid. They repeal provisions with which the Bill has no concern. That is fantastic. I put it to levelheaded Conservatives—

Mr. Ross: That is a contradiction in terms.

Mr. Rankin: There are three Conservative Members opposite at the moment. I put it to them that the Bill cuts out provisions with which it has nothing to do, which is daft. Then it goes on to do something still dafter, for it does not put anything in place of the provisions which it repeals. Who outside Bedlam would believe that any Government could do a thing like that? The Mental Health Bill is going through its Committee stage. Why the Government are not being considered in relation to

that Bill and its provisions, I do not know.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. M. Clark Hutchison) could give us an example from Edinburgh. The Government are rescinding a valuable Edinburgh provision dealing with non-dangerous buildings. The Bill has nothing to do with non-dangerous buildings. I invite the Solicitor-General for Scotland, who misguided us with his usual eloquence on many occasions in Committee, to tell us where the Bill deals with non-dangerous buildings. In fact, it does not mention them. Yet the Bill does away with provisions which Edinburgh uses to deal with gutters, roofs and other things.
When one takes the feet from under someone in a football game it is a foul and the offender may be sent off the field. The Government are taking the feet from under Edinburgh. It is dirty play, and people will be indignant about it.

Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison: It depends which game of football it is.

Mr. Rankin: In the hon. Member's estimation, no holds are barred.
Glasgow and Edinburgh think that what the Government are doing is wrong, but they are so generous that they have gone to the trouble of trying to save the Government's face. I thought that the Bill was like an expression of Tory foreign policy. It has become a loaded missile, and the Secretary of State has gone about dropping it all over the place in Scotland, blowing things up. It is supposed to have the objective of putting provisions in place of other provisions, but the Secretary of State is dropping his loaded missile everywhere and destroying everything in the process. In the case of some enactments, nothing will be left.
When the Secretary of State looks at what he has done, and sees the bits and pieces lying around, he will say to the local authorities, "If you want some of the provisions which I destroyed, although I had no need to destroy them because the Bill does not deal with them, come along to me in Edinburgh and establish a case for getting new provisional orders to deal with the jurisdictions which I have taken away from you. "That is so fantastic that I wonder what


we shall be told on behalf of the Government. There is no defence for this sort of thing.
Why should the Government take away something which they did not need to touch, something which has served the needs of both Edinburgh and Glasgow for a long while? These provisions have proved effective. Yet out of sheer wanton destructiveness the Government say, "We are making changes and have to destroy one or two provisions. We will just blow the whole lot up." That is what they call policy.
6.30 p.m.
Nothing in what I have said has been in the least exaggerated. It is all true. Local authorities, who have to bear the brunt, will once again require to go to the trouble of looking at the wreck and picking out the things which they used to carry on the functions of local government. If they find that there is an Order which has been taken away but which they need, they will have to pack up and go to Edinburgh and ask the Secretary of State, "Please restore what you did not need to destroy".
These things were argued out years ago, in some cases thirty years ago, and yet the authorities may once again have to go to the Secretary of State, who will have power to refuse to introduce a provisional Order. I am not suggesting that he will necessarily use that power, but it is wrong that the corporations should be in that position. That is a wrong which we are seeking to remedy. It is the function of Parliament when it sees the Government doing something wrong to tell them what is wrong and to show them, as we are showing them, where they are wrong.
It is all right for the Government to take away powers which are to be replaced, but why should they touch those powers with which the Bill has nothing to do? That is the situation which will be remedied if the Amendment is accepted. I hope that for the sake of the decent functioning of local administration in the two great cities of Scotland the Government will see their way to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Willis: I support the Amendment, since Edinburgh Corporation is also greatly worried about this matter. It is

difficult to understand why the Government have adopted this procedure, because it is not that recommended by the Guest Committee. The relevant paragraphs of that Committee's Report have been read, and I do not propose to read them again, but they suggest precisely the opposite of what the Government are doing. It is exceedingly difficult to understand why the Government should have set out on this course.
The Government are saying that they will wipe out all that they have done in the past and will start to rebuild on the basis of the Bill. However, for many years local authorities have found it necessary to have certain powers and jurisdictions to lay down certain standards of control over this, that and the other. They have successfully persuaded Parliament to grant them those powers, which are the powers they now use.
All of those powers are to be revoked by the Bill and replaced by powers covering only certain aspects of local government work. The argument of the Secretary of State is that if a local authority wishes to retain any of those powers, it must persuade him that it should retain them. It is a case of persuading not the House of Commons, but the Secretary of State, because it is the Secretary of State who will be able to introduce regulations, or not introduce regulations. In other words, the Secretary of State is being vested with a power which used to be vested in the House of Commons.
That cannot be a correct method of proceeding. The method suggested by the Guest Committee is far better. That method was to say that the Bill would replace certain functions and powers of local authorities. All the powers replaced would be revoked, but the remaining powers would be left in force. Why should we not leave what remains? If it becomes necessary as a result of further regulations to revoke some powers, then those powers would then be revoked. That is a workmanlike and perfectly constitutional way to proceed.
In other words, the course proposed by the Guest Committee was to say to local authorities, "The additional powers which you have found valuable, and which are not covered by the Bill, you will retain. We thought that they were


necessary and you have found them necessary and we will allow you to continue to use them. If, however, we issue further regulations or prescribe further standards which will cover those powers, then those powers will be revoked." That is the commonsense way to proceed.
However, the Secretary of State has rejected that method. Under the procedure now proposed, local authorities will have to search through all the Orders and provisions made in the last forty or fifty years, compare each with the provisions of the Bill to see whether it is covered, and, if it is not covered by the Bill, go to the Secretary of State and ask for power to continue the provision, a request which the Secretary of State has power to refuse.
That is the wrong way to treat responsible authorities. These powers would never have been given to local authorities if they had not been necessary. Mention has been made of the powers of the Edinburgh Corporation concerning the maintenance of buildings which are not dangerous, that is, the maintenance of roofs, drains, common stairs, and all those things with which the Edinburgh Corporation deals every day in preserving property in the city. The Corporation sends out thousands of orders to owners of property drawing attention to the need for repairs under those provisions.
That power will be wiped out and Edinburgh Corporation, which spent money obtaining that power, will now have to ask the Secretary of State, "Please, may we continue to have these powers?" We do not know that the right hon. Gentleman will continue to allow the corporation to continue with those powers, and that seems to us to be wrong. Edinburgh Corporation is perturbed about this provision, because there will be a sort of hiatus in its work which will lead to all sorts of additional difficulties.
Nor does the corporation know what its future position will be. For instance, what happens if the Secretary of State says, "You will not require any of these powers again"? Will it be possible for the corporation to promote a provisional Order and to include a Clause to get some of those provisions back? I do not think so. I think that it is the aim of the Government to have a common

standard, and I imagine that the Government would frown upon such an attempt. Powers which we thought to be necessary and which the local authority thinks to be necessary might be discontinued for good, with no guarantee that the pieces which my hon. Friend spoke about will, in fact, be gathered up or, if they are gathered up, the local authority will be allowed to keep the pieces.
I think that anyone examining this matter objectively must realise the tremendous difficulty and unfair position in which it places these two large local authorities. I trust that the Government will consider this sympathetically.
I see that the Solicitor-General is sitting on the Front Bench, and I presume that he will reply. It is not legalities that we want as a reply; we want arguments. We do not want a few legalisms thrown at us; they will not help us. I hope that we shall not get some legalistic interpretation on this and be fobbed off in that way. We would far rather have the common sense of the Joint Under-Secretary because we might then at least get somewhere.
I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will look at this matter objectively and try to appreciate the very difficult position in which the local authorities are placed and the tremendous difficulties which will be created for them in future if this Bill becomes law. I trust that he will realise that these Amendments are really quite just. There is nothing outrageous being asked for; it is simply a procedure which will preserve the corporations having to do certain things and also facilitate them in their work. I suggest that such a procedure would not interfere with the Secretary of State in carrying out his duties under the Bill.

6.45 p.m.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. William Grant): I think that we are agreed that certain local Act provisions should be preserved. The real question between us, despite certain rather belligerent remarks of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin), is how best we should do that.
If we look at the Amendment as it stands, the first difficulty about it—and it is a serious one—is that we know that the Guest Committee Report recommended, in Recommendations 3 and 43.


[THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND.] that the dean of guild courts should continue to exercise their jurisdiction in regard to building standards, but should deal with applications to build by reference only—and the operative word is "only"—to statutory building requirements.
Recommendation 43 says that the building control body—that is, the buildings authority—should be obliged to give permission to build if the proposals did not contravene the building regulations. If we were to accept this Amendment it would leave untouched common law jurisdiction of the dean of guild courts, with the result that even if the application came within the building requirements, and, according to these recommendations, ought to be granted, the dean of guild courts could still refuse the recommendation because of some common law power which they had in the past.

Mr. Willis: Such as?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. M. Clark Hutchison) raised the question in regard to people building garages, I think in the Grange district. Under its existing powers the dean of guild court could stop them being erected even though these garages are, or will be, entirely within the building regulations which are to be laid down. The Guest Committee's recommendations say that the dean of guild courts should have this jurisdiction, that if the application comes within the building regulations it shall be granted and that if it does not, it shall not be, apart from the question of private rights. This Amendment would leave the matter as it is today.

Mr. Woodburn: The question of whether or not a garage in the Grange is erected is, first of all, controlled by the planning authority. Someone must give permission for it to be built, so that the dean of guild court is the only body that has a veto on the erection of an ugly building in the Grange.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I cannot quote from memory the particular regulation concerned, but the right hon. Gentleman will remember that there are certain extensions of buildings, and the like, for which planning permission is not required. I think that I discussed this

with the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South. He may remember the regulation which I looked at some time ago. There are cases where a building can be extended or a bit put on to it, such as a garage, without the need for planning permission. The only sanction against that being done in Edinburgh at the moment is the dean of guild court.

Mr. Willis: That is quite right.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: If that is right, we cast aside completely Recommendations 3 and 43, because they say that if the building is within the building regulations, as these garages normally are, then permission ought to be granted. The weakness of this Amendment is that it does not deal with that particular matter, but leaves the existing common law jurisdiction of the dean of guild court, which it is the object of this Bill to repeal.

Mr. Willis: We have been asking not that the dean of guild court may be left necessarily with these common law rights but left with the powers which have been obtained by the local authorities, not as a result of common law but by orders obtained by the local authorities from Parliament.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I am coming to that. I am pointing out that, despite the skill with which the Amendment was drafted, it in fact leaves that common law power to the dean of guild court.

Mr. Willis: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has heard the argument.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I have heard the argument, but I am pointing out that if we were to accept the Amendment we would be preserving for the dean of guild courts in Edinburgh and Glasgow their old common law powers.
With regard to the question of private enactments, which I think the debate has turned on and to which I want to address myself particularly, the position is this. We are agreed on both sides that certain of those should be preserved. The question is how we are to do it.

Mr. Willis: That is the issue.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I think that our objective on both sides is


the same. It is really our method of doing it which is between us. First of all, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East, and. I think, the hon. Member for Govan, both raised the question of the time that it would take for local authorities to go through their enactments to find out which ones they wanted to preserve. If we take it on the basis of this Amendment we have even a greater task put on the Secretary of State, because he would then have to go through every local enactment to find out what ought to be repealed. That would be a far greater task than for the local authorities, which know to begin with to which particular provisions they attach value and want to preserve, and the result would be that this Bill could not be brought into operation until the Secretary of State had gone through all the local enactments and decided which ought to be repealed. That is a major practical difficulty which would arise if we accepted the Amendment.

Mr. Willis: There is a time factor here. Surely local authorities can be left with these powers until such time as the Secretary of State finds it possible to consider them. If this will be a big job for the Secretary of State, what is wrong with leaving these powers with local authorities until the right hon. Gentleman is able to consider them? They have already got these powers, having persuaded us that they were necessary. In that case I can see nothing wrong with leaving them with the local authorities until they can be considered by the Secretary of State in good time.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: That cannot be done, because unless the question is sorted out before the Measure comes into operation we may have two inconsistent sets of powers running side by side. That may lead to confusion.

Mr. Willis: That is not true. We are dealing with powers and functions which are covered by the Bill and with other powers which are not covered by it. If the Secretary of State draws up his regulations under the Bill and frames his codes and standards for all Scotland we shall know what they are. All we suggest is that the present powers should be alowed to continue. They will not be running parallel with anything because the two sets of powers will be dealing with different matters.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Under proviso (b) of the Amendment the Secretary of State has, in effect, to examine the provisions of all local Acts, decide whether they are inconsistent with any of the Bill's provisions, and then make an Order repealing or amending them accordingly. That is a major task, which would take a great deal of time, and if the Measure began to operate before that job was completed we should have two sets of law running in parallel, with inconsistent provisions. Until an Order was made under proviso (b) the old law would run equally with the new, and they would be completely contradictory.
The Bill retains the jurisdiction and functions of dean of guild courts in matters of private right, and I do not think that any of us has any worries about that. Secondly, paragraph 4 of the First Schedule leaves in force provisions of local enactments which correspond to the first three paragraphs of the First Schedule. Thirdly, paragraph 5 of the First Schedule gives the Secretary of State the right to preserve any local enactment. That point was considered in Committee.
This is not a question of resuscitating something. We are preventing local enactments from dying. Before the Measure begins to operate the Secretary of State can make an order saying, "These provisions shall continue in effect as though the Bill had never become law." That is the easiest way to deal with the matter. Local authorities know which provisions they want to preserve, and can inform the Secretary of State to this effect. He will consider the matter sympathetically and the provisions which the local authorities wish to retain, and which he thinks should be retained, will be retained. That is a far better system than the one provided for in the Amendment, which would result in two parallel and conflicting systems of law running at the same time.

Mr. Rankin: The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that we could have a situation where two statutory regulations were running together. How could a statutory Order such as the one that I have indicated, dealing with non-dangerous buildings—with which the Bill has nothing to do—run counter to any regulation made under the Bill?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I was dealing in this case with proviso (b) of the Amendment, and not with proviso (a).

Mr. Woodburn: I have listened with considerable interest to what the right hon. and learned Member has said, and in the case of Edinburgh and Glasgow I would say that it was possible that the two methods would have the result of sweeping everything away, with local authorities being asked to justify what they wanted to retain and the Secretary of State's Department going through all the local Acts to verify what was desirable to retain and what ought to be repealed, and drawing up a schedule repealing many local Acts.
From the point of view of the division of labour there is a good deal of sense in asking local authorities, who know there own business better than does the Secretary of State, to tell him what they want to retain. He can then see that it is retained. In that case, instead of the Secretary of State taking four or five months to get the job done it could be done in as many weeks, with each local authority working on its own. There is sense in that, because local authorities will know their local enactments better than anybody else. If this is an argument between local authorities and the Secretary of State as to who should do the job, the Government are probably right in passing the buck to the local authorities. I have no doubt that the Edinburgh and Glasgow authorities very much object to this job being put on their shoulders and would much prefer it to be done by the Secretary of State.
The right hon. and learned Member alarmed me when he suggested that if the Amendment were not accepted nobody would have any control over any sort of building that was erected in the Grange, so long as it was erected according to the best building standards.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I did not say "any building." I referred only to certain small buildings or extensions for which planning permission would not be needed. With an ordinary building planning permission is generally needed, but there are certain extensions for which planning permission is not needed under the regulations.

Mr. Woodburn: I live in the City of Edinburgh, and if I wanted to build a garden shed or something similar the dean of guild court would not only see whether it was built according to the best building standards, but also whether it fitted into the amenities of the district, and people would have the right to object. It would be quite intolerable if, to have a tidy Bill, that kind of building should return in any form to Edinburgh, Glasgow and similar areas, whose authorities are trying to keep their areas as beautiful as possible after 100 years of neglect. Unless the Solicitor-General for Scotland can assure me that some other provision will be made I shall not be prepared to give up the fight without a struggle. Whether or not Lord Guest said it, the people of Edinburgh will insist on having some control of what is to be built in their city.
The point raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman in connection with procedure is an admission that the Bill has been rushed through without proper consultation with local authorities, as we have been saying all along. Surely local authorities could have been persuaded to agree to this method of dealing with the matter. Surely they could have been asked to inform the Secretary of State about matters which conflicted with the provisions of the Bill, but in respect of which they wanted to retain their powers
7.0 p.m.
That would have achieved the same result as the Secretary of State will obtain by his method, only in that case the job would have been done in a tidy way. It would have come before the House in the form of legislation with the repeal of Acts as agreed with the local authorities. The trouble with this Bill has arisen because there has not been proper consultation with the local authorities. The Edinburgh and Glasgow authorities have brought their complaints to hon. Members on this side of the House, and it is our business, as the Opposition, to put them before the House and to try to ensure that the Secretary of State does this job properly.
The Solicitor-General for Scotland said that before the Bill becomes an Act what I am suggesting will have been done; local authorities will have given to the Secretary of State information about the


regulations which they wish maintained and all these regulations and powers will be preserved before general powers are abolished by the provisions in the Bill. So all that is happening is that the tidying up of the Bill is to be done after it has become an Act instead of before, which is the normal way. We on this side consider it a most untidy way to deal with legislation of this kind. It has caused perturbation to two great local authorities in Scotland, and probably to a number of smaller authorities which have no means of making representations here. I must ask my hon. Friends to

register disapproval of this method in the Division Lobby.

Mr. Rankin: May I ask the Solicitor-General for Scotland a question? He has seen some merit in the Amendment Would it be possible to get in touch with the Glasgow and Edinburgh authorities to see whether some common agreement can be reached on this matter before it is too late?

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 194, Noes 157.

Division No. 39.]
AYES
[7.4 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Finlay, Graeme
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Aitken, W. T.
Fisher, Nigel
McAdden, S. J.


Alport, C. J. M.
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John


Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William
Gammans, Lady
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)


Arbuthnot, John
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Maddan, Martin


Armstrong, C. W.
George, J. C. (Pollok)
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)


Atkins, H. E.
Gibson-Watt, D.
Markham, Major Sir Frank


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Glover, D.
Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.


Baldwin, Sir Archer
Glyn, Col. Richard H.
Marshall, Douglas


Barber, Anthony
Goodhart, Philip
Mawby, R. L.


Barlow, Sir John
Gough, C. F. H.
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.


Barter, John
Gower, H. R.
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Batsford, Brian
Graham, Sir Fergus
Nairn, D. L. S.


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Grant, Rt. Hon. W. (Woodside)
Neave, Airey


Beamish, Col. Tufton
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Nicholls, Harmar


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Green, A.
Noble, Comdr. Rt. Hon. Allan


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Gresham Cooke, R.
Noble, Michael (Argyll)


Bennett, F. M, (Torquay)
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Oakshott, H. D.


Bevins. J. R. (Toxteth)
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Bidgood, J. C.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)


Bingham, R. M.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Page, R, G.


Bishop, F. P.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Partridge, E.


Black, Sir Cyril
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Peel, W. J.


Body, R. F.
Hesketh, R. F.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Bossom Si Alfred
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.



Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Pitman, I. J.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Braine, B. R.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Pott, H. P.


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Hornby, R. P.
Powell, J. Enoch


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Brooman-White, R. C.
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Browne, J. Nixon (Cralgton)
Howard, John (Test)
Ramsden, J. E.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Rawlinson, Peter


Burden, F. F. A.
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Redmayne, M.


Campbell, Sir David
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Carr, Robert
Hutchison, Michael Clark(E'b'gh, S.)
Remnant, Hon. P.


Cary, sir Robert
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)
Rippon, A. G. F.


Channon, P.
Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Conant, Maj. sir Roger
Iremonger, T. L,
Roper, Sir Harold


Cooke, Robert
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Russell, R. S.


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Sharples, R. C.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Shepherd, William


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Cunningham, Knox
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Currie, G. B. H.
Kershaw, J. A.
Speir, R. M.


Dance, J. C. G.
Kimball, M.
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir p. (Kens'gt'n, S.)


Deedes, W. F.
Kirk, P, M.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


de Ferranti, Basil
Lambton, Viscount
Stevens, Geoffrey


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Leavey, J. A.
Storey, S.


Doughty, C. J. A.
Leburn, W. G.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


du Cann, E. D. L.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Duncan, Sir James
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Temple, John M.


Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Longden, Gilbert
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Elliott, R.W. (Ne'oastle upon Tyne, N.)
Loveys, Walter H.
Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)


Errington, Sir Eric
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford &amp; Chiswick)
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)




Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Tweedsmuir, Lady
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Vane, W. M. F.
Wall, Patrick
Woollam, John Victor


Vickers, Miss Joan
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)



Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.
Webster, David
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Mr. Chichester-Clark and




Mr. Whitelaw.




NOES


Ainsley, J. W.
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Reg&lt;ob/&gt;.)
Probert, A. R.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Herbison, Miss M.
Randall, H. E.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Rankin, John


Balfour, A.
Holman, P.
Reeves, J.


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Holt, A. F.
Reld, William


Benson, Sir George
Howell, Denis (All Saints)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Hoy, J. H.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Blackburn, F.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Blenkinsop, A.
Hunter, A. E.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Panoras, N.)


Blyton, W. R.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Boardman. H.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Ross, William


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. C.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Royle, C.


Bowles, F. G.
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Boyd, T. C.
Janner, B.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Brockway, A. F.
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Skeffington, A. M.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


Champion, A. J.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)


Chapman, W. D.
Kenyon, C.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Snow, J. W.


Clunie, J.
Lawson, G. M.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Coldrick, W.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Sprigs,Leslie


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Steele. T


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)




Cronin, J. D.
Lewis, Arthur
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Logan, D. G.
Swingler S. T.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Mahon, Dr. J. Dickson
Sylvester, G. O.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
McAlister, Mrs. Mary
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
McCann, J.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Davies, Rt. Hon. Clement (Montgomery)
MacColl, J. E.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Deer, G.
McLeavy, Frank
Thornton, E.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Mason, Roy
Timmons, J.


Dodds, N. N.
Moody, A. S.
Tomney, F.


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert (Lewls'm,S.)
Usborne, H, C.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Mort, D. L.
Viant, S. P.


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Moss, R.
Wade, D. W.


Edwards, w. J. (Stepney)
Mulley, F. W.
Warbey, W. N.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)
Watkins, T. E.


Fitch, Alan
Oram, A. E.
Weitzman, D.


Fletcher, Eric
Oswald, T.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Gibson, C. W.
Owen, W. J.
Wilkins, W. A.


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Palmer, A, M. F.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Grey, C. F.
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Parker, J.
Willis, Eustaoe (Edinburgh, E.)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Paton, John
Winterbottom, Richard


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Pearson, A.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Grimond, J.
Peart, T. F.
Woof, R. E.


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Pentland, N.
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Hamilton, W. W.
Popplewell, E.
Zilliacus, K.


Hannan, W.
Prentice, R. E.



Hastings, S.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hayman, F. H.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Mr. Holmes and Mr. Short.

Amendment made: In page 2, line 7, leave out from "functions" to "this" in line 8, and insert:
which would be exercisable by the court apart from".—[Mr. J. N. Browne.]

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move, in page 2, line 12, at the end to insert:
and in relation to the area of any such buildings authority the provisions of this Act shall be in lieu of any enactment or rule of law in force immediately before the commencement of this Act making it unlawful to erect, alter, repair or otherwise deal with a building, or

occupy a building in any particular way, without the sanction of the dean of guild court for that area".
It might be for the convenience of the House, Mr. Speaker, if we took with this Amendment the three consequential Amendments to Clause 6, namely, in page 7, line 15, to leave out "Nothing in this section shall prevent" and insert:
Notwithstanding anything in this section it shall be competent for".
In line 16, to leave out "from refusing" and to insert "to refuse".
In line 24, to leave out "from refusing" and to insert "to refuse"
The Amendment, which appears rather long and complicated, is a drafting Amendment and seeks to make it absolutely clear that the common law powers, as intended, have been abolished, so far as the dean of guild court is concerned. That having been done, we come to the three consequential Amendments in which, having taken away the common law powers, we must confer power of refusal under the Bill, to make assurance doubly sure. The Amendments—I speak as a lawyer—do not do very much. They merely make the Bill a little clearer than it was before.

Mr. Woodburn: Would the Solicitor-General take the opportunity of clearing up a point he made which gave the impression to me that, when the Bill is passed, all control over buildings which are related outwith the planning Acts will be simply a matter of building standards?
It gives the impression that neighbours and people in the vicinity of a building would have no right to object to a building, even though it will interfere with their rights, obstruct their view, or otherwise cause loss of value to their property by being unsightly in some way. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had better put it on public record that that will not he the case and that, if the Bill takes away common law rights, something effective will be put in their place before the Bill becomes law.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: With leave of the House, perhaps I might speak again to deal with that point. The right hon. Member will remember that in Clause 1 (4, b) the dean of guild court still has jurisdiction in relation to matters of private right. That will not necessarily cover an unsightly building within view; it would have to be something a little more than that. I will confirm that the dean of guild court will not, under the Bill, have its former powers, which it had in Edinburgh of, as it were, attaching not merely a building standard but a planning and amenity standard to the cases before it.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2.—(GENERAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO BUILDINGS AUTHORITIES.)

7.15 p.m.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move, in page 2, line 44, after "provisions", to insert "if any".
This is purely a drafting Amendment to cover cases where there is no provision in the local Act which corresponds to the provisions of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947, which are referred to in subsection (1). This affects only Glasgow, although we cannot mention Glasgow by name.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 6.—(APPLICATION OF BUILDING STANDARDS REGULATIONS AND BUILDING OPERATIONS REGULATIONS TO CONSTRUCTION OR DEMOLITION, AND TO CHANGE OF USE, OF BUILDINGS.)

Mr. Speaker: I do not select the next Amendment, in page 6, line 30, at the end to insert:
(4) A warrant for the demolition of a building shall he subject to the condition that the operations shall be completed in such reasonable period of time as may be determined by the buildings authority.
It can, of course, be discussed with the almost identical Amendment in the name of the Secretary of State for Scotland, in page 7, line 4, at the end to insert a new subsection. They cover the same point.

Mr. J. N. Browne: I beg to move, in page 6, to leave out lines 35 to 40 and to insert:
any application for a warrant shall state the period of intended life of the building (being not greater than that specified in the said provisions of the building standards regulations) and, without prejudice to the last foregoing subsection and subject to the next following subsection, the warrant shall be subject to the condition that the building will be demolished on or before the expiration of the period so stated".
The Amendment refers to the life of a temporary building. Regulations will lay down the maximum life of a temporary building. As the Bill stands, the building authority will have discretion to reduce that maximum for any building, and, of course, there is no appeal on the period it may fix. On the other hand, it may be worth a man's while to build, say, a temporary shop, so that he can have, say, five years' trading. The building authority may give him only two


years so that he must risk a further extension of life under subsection (5).
Under the Amendment the building authority can give the applicant the period for which he asks within the specified time limit. If the authority thinks that the period is too long it can turn down the application and the prospective builder can appeal. Building authority is in no way impaired by this Amendment. The builder will know exactly where he is in the first period. After the first period the builder must take his chance on the building period over which the building authority has discretion. Then the builder can appeal, if and when the building authority refuses.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 7, line 1, leave out
by such amount as they think fit".—[Mr. J. N. Browne.]

Mr. J. N. Browne: I beg to move, in line 4, at the end to insert:
(6) A warrant for the demolition of a building shall be subject to the condition that the demolition shall be completed within such period from the commencement of the operations for the demolition as may be specified in the warrant.
This Amendment meets the promise I made to the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser). In the cases to which the Clause refers, of the owner applying for a warrant to demolish, the hon. Member was quite right when he said that the demolition of a building should not create dangerous conditions by being unduly prolonged. So long as the work of demolition is completed in a reasonable time it does not matter so much for the purposes of this Clause when the demolition starts. The warrant for the demolition of a building might be applied for at Christmas, for instance, and it might be more convenient, and perhaps cheaper, to wait until spring to carry out the actual demolition work.
Turning to the suggested Amendment to line 30, which was not called, I would point out that there is only a slight difference between two points of view. The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) preferred a time limit for the completion of demolition rather than a limit on how long demolition should take. Hon. Members will bear in mind that the warrant for demolition is

one which is applied for by the owner of a building, who is unlikely to apply for a warrant for demolition and not do anything about it. What matters, therefore, and what normally will be the case, is that the difficulty will not be when demolition starts but how long is taken after it is started.
The hon. Member might have thought that, after receiving a warrant to demolish, the owner might fail to start work for an unreasonable time and that might create a difficulty, but, if he causes a danger or holds up planning, there are ample powers under other Acts to deal with that problem. I think we have met the promise I made to the hon. Member for Hamilton by putting down more or less the same Amendment as was suggested by hon. Members opposite.

Mr. Hannan: Had my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) been with us, he would at least have desired to acknowledge that the Government have taken action to meet the point we made in Committee. He acknowledged in Committee that the initial speech on the subject was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence).
I am satisfied that I may speak for both my hon. Friends, neither of whom is in the House at present. We should be very happy to accept this Amendment. We understand that the difficulties are met with after the warrant is issued. That was the main substance of the argument about delay made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East. In view of what the Joint Under-Secretary has said, I think we should be satisfied that quicker steps would be taken if we accept the Amendment he moved.

Sir James Duncan: I am afraid I do not know a lot about this Bill, and I was not on the Standing Committee. I rise merely to ask a question. In my part of the country—indeed, all over Scotland—for various reasons many country houses are being demolished. It makes a great difference to the price which the owner of the house gets if the demolisher does not have to demolish the stonework. He buys the house as it stands, probably removes the slates off the roof and takes out panelling and doors and all the valuable fixtures, and leaves the rest in a safe


condition, but not demolished. If a condition of sale is that the buyer has completely to demolish the property, the price of the country house becomes much less.
I wish to ask whether, now that county councils are to have these building powers, complete demolition will be obligatory in any order or permission given by a county buildings court in the case of an owner who wishes to sell a house of this type.

Mr. Browne: Under the definition of building, people can include part of a building and an owner asking for a warrant for partial demolition would, I have no doubt, be able to satisfy the building authority that that was in order. He would receive approval to demolish the part he wished to demolish, but he would have to do so within the time specified by the local authority.

Mr. Ross: Am I to understand that the demolition is not to be completed at all and that we shall have the possibility of partial demolition? One of the things which has annoyed people is that demolition work has started and not been completed. I thought the acceptance so graciously by the Government of the spirit of the Amendment showed that some action was to be taken to make sure that this would not happen in future.
We have seen this happen over and over again in the centre of towns. People have been told by local authorities to get on with demolition and they have started with a burst of enthusiasm and then stopped. We have seen it in almost every town in Scotland. Demolition has started and then stopped and it has been a long time before any further action has been taken. Quite apart from the question of the site itself, the result is unsightly. As the Joint Under-Secretary said, if it were a matter of danger the question could be tackled in other ways, but I still think that this is important because the question of personal danger seldom crops up until some children are playing among half demolished buildings and an accident occurs.
If demolition is to be started, it should go on until the work is completed. I hope the answer given by the Under-Secretary to the hon. Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) will not mean

encouragement to building authorities in future to sanction partial demolition, because I do not think that would meet the objections put by my hon. Friends in Committee. I am grateful for what the Government have done. I am a little doubtful about the danger of no limit being fixed from the date of commencement. I hope the words the Under-Secretary let drop today have not spoiled what seemed to be the good intentions of the Government in respect of the orginal discussion.

Mr. Browne: I speak again by leave of the House. I should like to disabuse the mind of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). We put down the Amendment to meet the point made by the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) and others that, where danger is caused in cities when various buildings are half demolished and litter is left on the road, the period allowed for the completion of the demolition should be specified. I think we are meeting the point put by hon. Members opposite.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 7, line 9, at end insert "buildings".

In line 11, leave out the second "the" and insert "that".—[Mr. J. N. Browne.]

In line 15, leave out "Nothing in this section shall prevent" and insert:
Notwithstanding anything in this section it shall be competent for".—[The Solicitor-General for Scotland.]

In line 16, leave out "from refusing" and insert "to refuse".

In line 24, leave out "from refusing" and insert "to refuse".—[Mr. J. N. Browne.]

7.30 p.m.

Mr. J. N. Browne: I beg to move, in page 7, line 27, at the end to insert:
or if, where the application relates to an extension to, or alteration of, a building, they consider that as a direct result of the extension or, as the case may be, the alteration the building as extended or altered will fail to conform with the building standards regulations;
and nothing in this section shall be taken to prejudice the operation of section seventeen of the Restriction of Ribbon Development Act, 1935, or section two of the Thermal Insulation (Industrial Buildings) Act, 1957 (which sections in their application to Scotland, as amended by this Act, empower or require buildings authorities to refuse to grant warrants in certain circumstances)".


This is an essential Amendment which was recommended by the Guest Committee at paragraph 124 of its Report. I will be quite frank with the House and say that we took some time to formulate this Amendment exactly as we wanted it, and that is why it was not put down in Committee. The Amendment protects the occupants of an altered or extended building where the alteration or extension directly causes some part of the existing building to fall below standard. If the unaffected parts of an existing building are already below standard, the building authority cannot require work to be done on those parts by reason of the extension. It can only require work to be done by applying the "reasonably practicable" formula for non-conforming buildings in Clause 10.
The point is best illustrated by examples. First, the toilets in a building may be sub-standard but not bad enough to require renewal. There may be an extension of the building which calls for more toilets and it may be more convenient to locate them in the old building. The new toilets must be up to standard, but the old ones need not be altered. Secondly, an escape route in an old building may, by reason of an alteration or extension, no longer conform to the regulations. In these cases the buildings authority would be entitled to refuse warrant unless alterations were made in the plans.
The second part of the Amendment is largely drafting. Under the two Acts referred to, warrants can be refused in certain circumstances. The obligation to grant a warrant in Clause 6 (2) does not override the right to refuse a warrant contained in the two Acts referred to.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 7.—(MINOR WORKS.)

Mr. M. Clark Hutchison: I beg to move, in page 8, line 12, to leave out "shall" and to insert "may".
As at present drawn, the Bill will force all building authorities and dean of guild courts to delegate to the clerk or the master of works their authority to grant unopposed minor warrants. The Edinburgh Corporation does not like this direction, and I do not like it either.
My reasons are as follows. First, it is much better to give the building authority

the choice whether to delegate or not. Our Unionist view has always rightly been to trust local authorities, to give them powers and responsibilities. Here is a chance to do so, and we should take it. Let them exercise their discretion.
Secondly, the dean of guild court in Edinburgh meets once a week, so that if they do not delegate there is no delay in the issue of these minor warrants. The city engineer, who is the master of works, believes that even if he had the delegated power he would not be able to act any more quickly than the court already acts.
Thirdly, even with unopposed minor warrants, is it not better that they should be dealt with by a court rather than by one man? The members of the court might see some point or have some question to ask which had escaped the attention of the clerk or the master of works.
Fourthly, Edinburgh used to have a system of delegation, but it was changed by Act of Parliament in 1926 when it was found that certain officials had been guilty of malpractices. Surely, it is wrong for us now to force Edinburgh back to the old system which it does not want to have?
Fifthly, I can find no recommendation in the Guest Report that the present arrangements in Edinburgh should be changed.
Sixthly, I have not heard of any complaints about people suffering delay, great expense or inconvenience. There may have been complaints, but they have not come my way. I have made inquiries and have been told that local authorities have had no complaints either. I want the City of Edinburgh to have the choice to delegate or not, according to circumstances, and it can alter the system according to what the local people want.
I think that right hon. and hon. Members will agree that these are all very powerful arguments. They concern Edinburgh only. I do not think any other city or county is particularly worried about this point, but Edinburgh is. I do not want to press the Amendment unduly, because Edinburgh's position can be protected if my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland exercises the powers he will have under Clause 28. Will my right hon. Friend tell me that if I do not press the Amendment he


will be good enough to listen to the representations of the local government officials of Edinburgh?

Sir Ian Clark Hutchison: beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. Willis: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. M. Clark Hutchison) rather spoiled the case by saying that he wanted this provision merely for Edinburgh, because if it is right to give a choice to Edinburgh, then surely it is right to give every local authority the same choice. I can see no reason why this should not be left to the local authority. If any inconvenience has been caused by the fact that the authority has not delegated power in respect of minor warrants, surely the people in the burgh will exert sufficient pressure on the local authority to change that. Under the ordinary democratic processes such a matter would arise at an election and people would say, "What about this long delay in respect of minor warrants?" As a result, the local authority would decide to change the procedure and to delegate authority.
This seems to me to be a good principle to support. I therefore support Edinburgh in this matter, because I support the principle on which the Amendment is based. Why is it made obligatory to follow this procedure? Why is the choice not left to the local authority? If the Minister cannot accept his hon. Friend's Amendment, I hope that he will at least consider what his hon. Friend said about permitting Edinburgh Corporation to ask for the continuation of the existing position under Clause 28.

Mr. J. N. Browne: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) is right when he says that the Amendment goes much wider than Edinburgh itself.
We have already widened the Bill so that there could be application to the master of works as an alternative to the clerk to a buildings authority in handling minor warrants, but we do not want what is happening in Edinburgh to happen all over Scotland. Even though it may not take very long to grant an unopposed minor warrant—and we are referring only to unopposed minor warrants—the Edinburgh citizens have to attend or be represented in order to receive the rubber stamp, as it were, of a minor warrant. That is the present practice in Edinburgh.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. M. Clark Hutchison) said that there had been no complaint, but we must remember that people accept bureaucratic arrangements very calmly, nor do we all have to queue every day for a minor warrant. We feel quite strongly that we should have a minor warrant procedure which does not make a lot of unnecessary work either to the person making the application or to his representative. For that reason, we cannot accept the Amendment.
My hon. Friend asked that my right hon. Friend should be prepared to listen to representations. Of course my right hon. Friend will be prepared to listen, but I do not want to be optimistic about the outcome of such discussions. It would be unfair to be optimistic about them.

Mr. Willis: The hon. Member has referred to delays in Edinburgh. I have had some experience of going to the dean of guild court and I must say that I have not been greatly inconvenienced. Who has been making these objections?

Mr. Browne: No one from Edinburgh has objected to this procedure but—

Mr. Willis: Mr. Willis rose—

Mr. Browne: If the hon. Member asks a question he must at least wait for the answer before he asks me another question.
There have been no objections from Edinburgh, but the system employed in Edinburgh causes the citizen or his representative to give up perhaps a quarter of a day or half a day in order to sit in the court when, in our view, this is quite unnecessary. These are applications for unopposed minor warrants and could well be sent in by post.

Mr. Willis: Surely the people to decide whether they are being inconvenienced are the citizens of Edinburgh. It is not for the Minister to say, "Whitehall knows best. You are being inconvenienced. We will do something to prevent that." It is not for him to say that when, according to him, the citizens themselves have done nothing about it.

Mr. Browne: There will be time under Clause 28 for Edinburgh to make all those points.
I should not like Edinburgh to think that we have treated its proposals lightly. We have met Edinburgh on a number of points. Edinburgh suggested that there should be delegation to the master of works as an alternative to the clerk of the buildings authority and, as requested, we have put additional provisions in the First Schedule enabling an order to be made saving the dean of guild jurisdiction which would otherwise be excluded by Clause 1. We have great fondness and respect for Edinburgh and we have tried to do everything we can to meet its views. In this case, however, I must stick to the answer which I have given.

Mr. M. Clark Hutchison: In view of what my hon. Friend has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 8.—(CERTIFICATES OF COMPLETION.)

7.45 p.m.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move, in page 9, line 3, to leave out "the owner of the building" and to insert:
any person having an interest to do so".
This Amendment could conveniently be considered with the Amendment, in line 8. Its purpose is to ensure that the certificate of completion can be sought by the person who has an interest in obtaining it. The word "owner" is too narrow, because there are a number of occasions, for example, when an agricultural tenant or a tenant under a long lease is constructing the building and not the owner. It is not easy to find the words precisely to cover all cases, but we think that the words of the Amendment do, in fact, do so.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 9, line 8, leave out "owner" and insert "applicant".—[The Solicitor-General for Scotland.]

Mr. J. N. Browne: I beg to move, in page 9, to leave out lines 15 to 17 and to insert:
mentioned in the last foregoing subsection unless there is produced to them a certificate granted by the person who installed the installation certifying that the installation complies with such of the said conditions as relate to it".

The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. J. Taylor) pointed out in Committee that the phrase
a certificate of the truth of those facts
raised, in his own words,
a very pedantic and minor point of problematical purity."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 4th December, 1958; c. 133.]
In a spirit of co-operation we have altered the wording without altering the meaning or sense.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. J. N. Browne: I beg to move, in page 9, line 17 at the end to insert:
Provided that this subsection shall not apply in a case where it is shown to the satisfaction of the buildings authority that for some reasonable cause such a certificate cannot be produced.
Under the Bill certificates certifying the correctness of the electrical installations have to be given. The Amendment covers two main possibilities—either that the person who installed the electrical installation has died or is not otherwise available or that, because of dispute with the owner or main contractor, possibly over the payment of the bill, the latter withholds the certificate to gain bargaining power. In either case, in the absence of a certificate, the master of works would have to take other steps to satisfy himself that the installations complied with the requirements.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. J. N. Browne: I beg to move, in page 9, line 25, at the beginning to insert:
Subject to the next following subsection".
This could be discussed with the Amendment in line 33.
The Amendment meets points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Nairn) and the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser). It is clearly right to allow the occupation of a partly completed building in the event of bad weather—for example, to allow a pigsty to be occupied by the pigs. Furthermore, following a traditional method of building in the Highlands, crofters may be far better off occupying part of a new but unfinished cottage than in remaining in the old and insanitary building.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 9, line 33, at the end insert:
(6) Where on application made to them it appears to a buildings authority that, because of exceptional circumstances, it is reasonable that a building to which the last foregoing subsection applies should be temporarily occupied or used before a certificate of completion in respect of it has been issued they may (whether or not the construction of the building has been completed) grant written permission for such occupation or use during such period as may be specified in the permission (which period may be extended from time to time by a like permission); and while any permission under this subsection is in force in relation to any building the last foregoing subsection shall not have effect in relation to that building.—[Mr. J. N. Browne.]

Clause 9.—(POWERS IN RELATION TO BUILDINGS CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT WARRANT OR IN CONTRAVENTION OF CONDITIONS OF WARRANT, AND BUILDINGS WHOSE LIFE HAS EXPIRED.)

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move, in page 10, line 10, to leave out "the owner of the building" and to insert:

(i) the person by whom, or on whose behalf, the building has been or is being constructed, or
(ii) if that person no longer has an interest in the building, any other person who at the material time is entitled to the interest in the building which that person formerly had, or, if at the material time there is no such other person, the owner of the building.
It may be for the convenience of the House if this Amendment is discussed with the next four Amendments, and also the Amendments to page 10, lines 36 and 42.
These Amendments are very much like the last pair of Amendments which I dealt with. They seek to alter the word "owner" to cover the person— who is responsible for the building which is being constructed without a warrant. In effect, what these Amendments do is to provide that, where action is taken under the Clause in respect of buildings constructed without a warrant, or in contravention of a warrant, the person against whom action is to be taken is, first, the person who has put up or is putting up the building; secondly, if that person has given up his interest, then, his successor; and, thirdly, if there is no successor, the owner.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In line 17, leave out "he fail" and insert:
the person upon whom the notice has been served fails".

In line 25, leave out "owner of the building" and insert:
person against whom the order has been made".

In line 28, leave out "owner" and insert "said person".

In line 31, leave out "owner of the building" and insert "said person".

In line 36, at end insert:
from any person, if that person is the owner of the building".

In line 42, leave out "owner of the building" and insert:
person on whom the notice is served".[The Solicitor-General for Scotland.]

Clause 15.—(APPEALS.)

Amendments made: In page 15, line 34, leave out first "a" and insert "any".

In line 7, leave out:
or the service of the notice".—[Mr. J. N. Browne.]

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move, in page 16, line 8, at the end to insert:
Provided that on any appeal in a case falling under paragraph (g) of this subsection no question shall be raised which might have been raised on an appeal against the original order requiring the execution of the operations concerned.
The purpose of this Amendment is to provide that where an appeal is made to the sheriff against a charging order it will not be open to the appellant to raise any questions which could and should have been raised, but were not raised, in the appeal against the original Order. This is merely to guard against time-delaying tactics by persons who try to raise at the last moment matters which they should have raised at a much earlier stage.

Amendment agreed to.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move, in page 16, line 15, to leave out from "may" to end of line 20 and to insert:

(a) if the appeal is in a case falling within paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) or paragraph (c) of subsection (1) of this section, either confirm the decision or direct the substitution of such other decision as seems to him proper, having regard to the provisions of this Act and of any other Act relevant to the decision in question;


(b) if the appeal is in a case falling within any other provision of subsection (1) of this section, confirm, vary or quash the order as he thinks just and make such order in the matter as he considers equitable;
and the determination of the sheriff on any such appeal shall be binding on all parties, and shall be final.
The purpose of this Amendment is to restrict the sheriff's equitable jurisdiction to cases where that is applicable; that is to say, to paragraphs (d) to (g) of Clause 15 (1). It ensures that, in the other cases, he will have to look, not at everything, in the broad sense, but at this Act, and the regulations which are made under it.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In line 31, leave out "notice or."—[Mr. J. N. Browne.]

Clause 16.—(INSPECTION AND TESTS.)

Mr. J. N. Browne: I beg to move, in page 17, line 6, after "him", to insert "or by the buildings authority".
The effect of this Amendment is to enable entry for the purposes specified, not only by the master of the works, but also by the buildings authority. It is desirable that the buildings authority should be able to confer the power of entry, in order that it may be able to authorise a sub-committee to inspect the building, as envisaged by paragraph 6 of the Second Schedule. This the Amendment does.

Amendment agreed to.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move, in page 18, line 45, to leave out from "require" to "an" and insert:
(a) any person who has made".
It may be convenient to take this Amendment along with the following two Amendments, and also that to page 19, line 6.
The first two Amendments are really paving Amendments for the Amendment to page 19, line 2, whereby we are overcoming the difficulty of the use of the word "owner", because, here again, the person who is responsible may not be the owner, but somebody else.

Mr. Hannan: May I make a brief intervention here to say that Clause 16 has suffered immeasurably by the number of Amendments made, and has been mutilated by the Amendments now being made. We had a number of Amend-

ments to this Clause earlier during the Committee stage, and the Clause has really been rewritten. Certainly, what we have here bears little relation to the initial drafting of the Bill. The Clause extends over two pages of the Bill, and deals with inspection and tests. We had in mind asking the Government for an explanation of the latter part of the Clause, and particularly of the words
unless the buildings authority, on application made to them, otherwise direct.
The Government appear to have anticipated what the trouble was, and, consequently, have deleted some of the words and added their own Amendment during the Committee stage.
I should, finally, like to ask the Government to invite the draftsmen to be very careful about these periods. If, in the Government Amendment which has not yet appeared on the Notice Paper, a period is put to give an indication where the Amendment finishes, it would help some of us to understand the Bill properly. There is no period or comma to enable us to see where these Amendments have been made, and we are handicapped by a lack of these commas, which adds immeasurably to our difficulties.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 19, line 1, leave out "or a warrant under section six".

In line 2, leave out "has been made" and insert:
or
(b) any person by whom, or on whose behalf, a building is being or has been constructed in pursuance of a warrant."—[The Solicitor-General for Scotland.]

Mr. J. N. Browne: I beg to move, in page 19, line 3, after "such", to insert "reasonable".
In Clause 16 (1, b), the master of the works is authorised to enter at any reasonable time, and it is right that the same element of reasonableness should be applied to tests which the master of works should require the persons responsible for the building to carry out.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In line 6, leave out "section" and insert "subsection".

In line 6, leave out "owner of the building" and insert "person so required".—[Mr. J. N. Browne.]

Clause 18.—(FEES CHARGEABLE BY BUILDINGS AUTHORITIES.)

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Hannan: I beg to move, in page 19, to leave out line 20 and to insert:
determined by the local authority".
We are here dealing with the fees chargeable by the buildings authorities. Clause 18 (1) says:
A buildings authority may, in respect of such of their business as may be prescribed, charge such fees as may be prescribed in relation thereto.
The Amendment is designed to delete the latter words so that the end of that sentence would read:
fees as may he determined by the local authority".
I confess at once that we have put down this Amendment to elicit information. If the action suggested in the Amendment commends itself to the Government, we should be very pleased to have their support. As we understand, the building authority will have certain fees to charge. The building authorities are not uniform throughout the country. In many cases, it is the local authority, and in some the dean of guild court, which will have premises and so forth provided in accordance, I think it is, with the Second Schedule. In our view, the local authority, by virtue of its providing such accommodation, should be the body to determine the fees.
It is true that subsection (2) says:
'Any fees received by a buildings authority … shall be paid by them to the local authority.
I think that the Government have an Amendment to subsection (1) which will be considered next. In the meantime, dealing with our Amendment to subsection (1), we should like to know what are the reasons for saying that these fees should not be determined by the local authority, collected by the building authority, and transferred back to the local body. As I understand it, the Second Schedule defines the local authorities which have not dean of guild courts and lays down their powers. What about local authorities which have dean of guild courts? What is the procedure there at the moment? Does not this Amendment commend itself to the Government?

Mr. Woodburn: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. J. N. Browne: It is a little difficult to discuss this Amendment apart from the Amendment put down by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, in line 20, at the end to insert:
and different fees may be prescribed for different buildings authorities".
I will, however, deal with the point which the hon. Member for Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) has made. We believe that it would be wrong to allow, as his Amendment would, every local authority to fix its own scale of fees for its building authority, and I do not think that the hon. Gentleman himself would, on reflection, wish it.

Mr. Hannan: The hon. Gentleman has suggested that I would not agree that different local authorities should arrange their own scale of fees. I have in mind the Government Amendment to provide that
different fees may be prescribed for different buildings authorities".
Does that meet the point?

Mr. Browne: Would it be with your approval, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and for the convenience of the House, if we discussed this Amendment with my right hon. Friend's Amendment?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that it would be for the convenience of the House to discuss the two together.

Mr. Browne: My right hon. Friend's Amendment would clarify the situation. As amended, subsection (1) would now read:
A buildings authority may, in respect of such of their business as may be prescribed, charge such fees as may he prescribed in relation thereto, and different fees may be prescribed for different buildings authorities.
It is next provided by subsection (2), if it be amended as proposed, that
Any fees received by a buildings authority by virtue of this section by a buildings authority to whom section three hundred and twenty-eight of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947, refers"—
that is to say, the burghs—
or any corresponding provision of a local Act "—
that is, Edinburgh, Perth, Rutherglen and Paisley, but not Glasgow—
or paragraph 11 of the Second Schedule to this Act applies"—
that is, the counties and Aberdeen and Dundee—
shall be paid by them to the local authority.


The second part, in effect, says that every building authority but Glasgow pays over its fees to the local authority, but my right hon. Friend can prescribe separate fees for separate authorities. That, basically, covers the position in Glasgow where the fees are slightly higher than elsewhere.
I come now to the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Maryhill. He suggests that there is nothing wrong in the building authority fixing its own fees. The Guest Committee was a little critical of the present method of charging fees. We believe that it should and could be simplified. In the interests of every builder in Scotland, we want to achieve a state of affairs where more or less uniform fees are charged for more or less uniform service.
Taking the service, first, I think it is right that my right hon. Friend should, in consultation with all concerned, decide which services are chargeable and, having agreed a list of services so that all the builders know where they are, he has to consider whether there shall be one or more scales of fees applicable to Scotland as a whole, except Glasgow. That is something which he will undoubtedly discuss with the local authorities concerned.
There is nothing sacrosanct in the idea of one scale or the idea that one type of local authority should not charge a different scale, but it would be wise that the fees should be all on the same basis. The hon. Gentleman will see that we have met him to some extent, but, if we were to accept his Amendment, we could reach a stage where every local authority would be able to fix its own scale of charges and its own items for which charging could be done. The result would be somewhat similar to the chaotic situation today where, if one builds in one part of the country, one does not know exactly what the situation is as compared with another part. We want the maximum degree of uniformity.
We must also bear in mind that, under the Bill as it stands, if a local authority does not want to charge the fees as prescribed it does not have to do so. It can make no charge at all; there is nothing against making no charge and bearing the whole cost on the rates. What we do not want, however, is a large number of

differing rates in various parts of Scotland.

Amendment negatived.

Amendments made: In page 19, line 20, at end insert:
and different fees may be prescribed for different buildings authorities".

In line 21, leave out "by a buildings authority".—[Mr. J. N. Browne.]

Amendment proposed: In page 19, line 22, after "section", to insert:
by a buildings authority to whom section three hundred and twenty-eight of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947, or any corresponding provision of a local Act or paragraph 11 of the Second Schedule to this Act applies".—[Mr. J. N. Browne.]

Mr. Hannan: The Amendment refers to
… a buildings authority to whom section three hundred and twenty-eight of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947, or any corresponding provision of a local Act, or paragraph 11 of the Second Schedule to this Act applies.
The Amendment is inexplicable to me. I believe that the Joint Under-Secretary has the answer, but I do not think that there is a Section 11 in the Second Schedule. Is that the answer?
How is paragraph 11 related to the Amendment? Paragraph 11 reads:
The local authority shall provide such accommodation, and such furniture, books and other things, as is required for the transaction of the business of the buildings authority, and shall pay any expenses of the authority.
Section 328 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act provides that:
The town council shall provide such accommodation, with furniture, books and other things".
and pay salaries with certain exceptions. What are the exceptions? Can the Joint Under-Secretary reply to that point?

Mr. J. N. Browne: I could not, offhand, reply to the hon. Gentleman's last question, but I appreciate his confusion. The difficulty is that we have to refer to Glasgow without actually mentioning it by name. The position is that only in Glasgow does the building authority or dean of guild court not pay any money to the local authority. Subsection (2) reads:
Any fees received by … a buildings authority by virtue of this Section shall be paid by them to the local authority".
Which are the fees to be paid? The reference in the 1947 Act covers all the


burghs. The reference to the corresponding provisions of a local act covers all the dean of guild courts which will act as building authorities, and I assure the hon. Members, because I have investigated this matter, that one could not refer to Glasgow as being covered by a corresponding provision of a local Act because Glasgow does not depend on any local Act for the existence of its dean of guild court.
The Second Schedule refers to the counties and Aberdeen and Dundee and as under the Second Schedule the counties pay all the expenses of the authority so under this subsection the authorities pay all the fees to the counties. [An HON. MEMBER: "A wangle".] It is not a wangle. It is a nice piece of drafting.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 19.—(PROVISIONS AS TO MASTERS OF WORKS.)

Amendment made: In page 20, line 9, leave out "said Act of" and insert "Local Government (Scotland) Act—[Mr. J. N. Browne.]

Clause 25.—(TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS.)

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move, in page 23, line 2, to leave out from first "the" to the end of line 7 and to insert:
purposes of the transitional matters specified therein".
8.15 p.m.
This is a drafting Amendment, which is consequential on certain Amendments which were made in Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 27.—(INTERPRETATION.)

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move, in page 24, line 19, to leave out from "Act" to the end of line 20 and to insert:
includes a decreet-arbitral, provisional order or other instrument ratified or confirmed by a Parliament of Scotland or of the United Kingdom
This Amendment concerns our old friend Glasgow, which, again, we cannot mention by name. The reason for the Amendment is that the constitution and procedure of the Glasgow Dean of Guild Court rests not upon a local Act but on a thing called a decreet-arbitral, which,

in effect, is a judgment in an arbitration way back in 1605 which was ratified by the Scottish Parliament in 1672.

Mr. Rankin: This Amendment is indicative of the extreme lengths to which the Government have been forced to go to try to make the Bill presentable.

Mr. Hannan: Shocking.

Mr. Rankin: Absolutely shocking. They are going back nearly 300 years, before the Act of Union. They are going all that way back to take a little stumble forwards.

Mr. Ede: The date which the Solicitor-General gave was the date of the powder plot, when the English tried to blow up the Scottish king.

Mr. Rankin: To get the Bill through, the Government have had to bring to life a reference to the Scottish Parliament.
I tabled a Question with the purpose of obtaining maximum self-government for Scotland. Of course, the Amendment might be tied up with the idea for a Scottish Parliament. This is merely an illustration, but it would appear that a Scottish Parliament has some uses, in view of the fact that the Government have gone back hundreds of years to help the Bill on its way. Perhaps if a Scottish Parliament were in being the Government might have got the Bill through with less difficulty than has faced them tonight.
However, we offer the Government congratulations in the discovery that they have made—that there was a Parliament in Scotland which they now find of some use, and perhaps we may take that as an indication of the lines along which their thoughts are proceeding. It may be they are looking forward to a Parliament in Scotland which they may find of even greater use in the attempts which they are making to get their Bills through.

Mr. Hannan: The Government have shown by the Amendments that if they make up their mind to achieve a certain objective, they can do it and overcome all obstacles. The Solicitor-General made up his mind to maintain this archaic institution in Glasgow and found words to achieve that objective. The Government have allowed this old institution to defy them and local opinion in the City of Glasgow.
Why should the words be taken out? It is stated in page 24 of the Bill that
'local Act' has the same meaning as in the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947.
I would be able to understand the Amendment better if the original words were left in and the words of the Amendment added for the purpose of greater accuracy.
Will the Solicitor-General for Scotland tell the House what a "decreet-arbitral" is? Should it be "decree-arbitral"? I consulted the Encyclopaedia of the Laws of Scotland to find out what this meant. I found that it is the enforcement of an award. It is described as:
a summary diligence in common form, and matters arising as to their execution are matters of diligence law.
This appeared to me to have no remote connection with the definition of what a local Act is. This is a matter which gives substance and existence to the dean of guild in the City of Glasgow. It concerns the organisation which is responsible for the building laws and the interpretation of the new code. The Government have circumvented justice by adopting a trick to keep the dean of guild court in the City of Glasgow.
If it should be "decree-arbitral" and not "decreet-arbitral", there will no doubt have to be another Amendment. May we know the year from which the term dates? What history has the term? How often has it been used in local government work since, say, 1920? As I say, I found a definition in the Encyclopaedia of the Laws of Scotland, but I cannot find any relationship with the definition of a local Act.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Perhaps I may, by leave of the House, deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan). We have to go back to the definition in the 1947 Act. As the Bill stands, "local act" has the same meaning as in the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947, where we find:
'local Act' includes a provisional order under any Act confirmed by Parliament ….
If we give effect to the Amendment, we are saying that "local Act" includes not only a provisional order under any Act confirmed by Parliament but also this curious creature, the decreet-arbitral, or

other instrument ratified or confirmed by the Parliament of Scotland or the United Kingdom.
I will try to explain what this mysterious phrase decreet-arbitral "means. It is a decision or judgment in an arbitration. It is "decree-arbitral" or "decreet-arbitral", the latter being as it was known in the old days, and we have used the old phrase because it is an old decision. It was an arbitration between the merchants and the crafts in Glasgow in 1605. It is from that that the constitution and procedure of the dean of guild court still stems, and it was ratified by the Scots Act of 1672. I can assure the hon. Member that there is no funny business about this although it sounds rather odd.

Mr. Woodburn: The Solicitor-General for Scotland will agree that this "shell" from ancient history seems today in Glasgow to be filled by an entirely different animal from the one which got into the "shell" of the old merchant guilds and trade houses in order to find a back door on to the Glasgow Town Council.
Making the Bill work has involved the Government in the most extraordinary manœuvres. For the sake of the Secretary of State's own administration, he should have carried out his first intention, which was to get these people to agree that they should be brought into harmony with existing circumstances. Instead of that, the Bill has to be messed up with a lot of jargon in order to make it possible for something which goes back to ancient history to survive. I am a member of an organisation concerned with the preservation of ancient buildings, and we do our best to preserve ancient monuments, but we try to get modern inhabitants in them to keep them up to date with modern circumstances.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: I am fascinated to find in the middle of a 1959 Bill an Amendment proposed by the Government to bring in such magnificent legal phraseology as "decreet-arbitral", and even more fascinated to find that we are ensuring that the dean of guild court in Glasgow is not merely buttressed by provisional orders and Acts of this Parliament, which has been in existence for only 350 years, but is to have the additional strengthening of Acts of the Parliament of Scotland which existed before


1707. It is a fascinating disclosure of the lengths to which a Conservative Government are prepared to go to bolster up undemocratic privilege.
The Secretary of State at an earlier stage in our discussions rather let the cat out of the bag by indicating that he regarded his efforts to protect the dean of guild and the deacon convenor in Glasgow merely as a sort of first step in a reactionary course which was shortly to bring back the university seats. As far as I can see, shortly after that we shall be finding the Government going back to the age of the rotten boroughs. It is a most astonishing process that legal matters from so far back should be brought into action in order to maintain the position of the dean of guild court, and this in a very modern Bill which is trying to bring about mid-twentieth century building standards.
8.30 p.m.
I have often wondered exactly what function the Solicitor-General for Scotland performed for the Government in the Scottish Office, but now at last we know. He is the man who comes to the rescue when all other lines of defence are down. He goes back to 1605 and to the old Scottish Parliament to bamboozle us with magnificent legal phraseology. It is a remarkable performance, but it is clear that the Secretary of State's discussion with the Trades' House and the Merchant House in Glasgow could not have been so seriously concerned with trying to modernise the dean of guild court as with all those various legal manoeuvres which were embarrassingly necessary if the dean of guild court was to be preserved with all its medieval panoply in this mid-twentieth century Bill. It is astonishing that a Government in this day and age should try to preserve the dean of guild courts and go to the lengths of this sort of Amendment in order to do so.
The Secretary of State was both shocking and weak in his defence, because he referred to the position in Glasgow and the need for preserving those out-of-date provisions while not mentioning that in Dundee, where we have a very old dean of guild court, the Government have been sensible and progressive. The court in Dundee is so ancient that its jurisdiction applies only to the old medieval City of Dundee. Faced with that position, rather than

extend the jurisdiction of the medieval dean of guild court of Dundee to the whole of Dundee, the Government sensibly decided to allow the Dundee Corporation, the democratically elected local authority, to form the building authority for the city.
If they can act sensibly and progressively in that case, why have they had to fight to the last seventeenth century ditch with the Glasgow dean of guild court? The Government will one day come to regret the work which they have done in the House of Commons tonight and the legal researches of the Solicitor-General for Scotland, because tomorrow morning they will appear to the people of Glasgow, when those people read of our proceedings here, as prepared to go to any length to preserve unjustified and undemocratic privilege.

Amendment agreed to.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move, in page 24, line 42, after "sixteen", to insert:
and subsection (2) of section twenty-four".
This is a drafting Amendment, as the definition of "warrant" is no longer applicable to Clause 24.

Amendment agreed to.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move, in page 25, line 3, after "the", to insert "extension".
It may be convenient if with this we take the next two Amendments.
These three Amendments are to enable a building authority when granting a warrant for an extension to look at the extension as a building, just as it regards an alteration as an alteration. It is largely a drafting Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 25, line 6, after "as", insert "is comprised in the extension or".

In line 7, at end insert "as the case may be".—[The Solicitor-General for Scotland.]

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move, in page 25, line 37, at the end to insert:
(9) Any reference in this Act, except in section fifteen thereof, or in any other Act to the exercise by a buildings authority of any of their functions shall, in the case of a function which may be delegated to any person by virtue of


any provision of this Act, be construed as including a reference to the exercise of the function by that person.
The purpose of this Amendment is to make it clear that where in the Bill there is reference to the exercise by a building authority of some function, that reference also applies to the exercise of the function by the clerk or the master of works, as the case may be. There is only one exception to that, which is under Clause 15 which provides for an appeal to the sheriff. The position there is that if an applicant is dissatisfied with the decision of the clerk or the master of works he has no right to go straight to the sheriff, but must go to the building authority first.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 28.—(LOCAL ACT PROVISIONS.)

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move, in page 25, line 38, at the beginning to insert:
Subject to the next following subsection
I think that it might be convenient to take this together with the Amendment in page 25, line 46, leave out from "Act" to the end of line 3 on page 26 and to insert:
(2) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument except from the operation of the foregoing subsection such provisions of any local Act as may be specified in the order (being provisions to which apart from the order that subsection would apply) and direct that the corresponding provisions of this Act or of any regulations having effect by virtue of this Act (which provisions shall be specified in the order) shall not have effect in the areas in which the specified provisions of the local Act have effect:
Provided that no order under this subsection shall be made in relation to a provision (being a provision of a local Act) which has ceased to have effect.
This is a paving Amendment, and, if I may say so, the guts of the matter come in the second Amendment. This Amendment has already, in effect, been discussed, although not specifically. It is to enable an Order under Clause 28 (1) to disapply the provisions of the Bill and the regulations made under it where any corresponding provisions of a local Act are being retained. It allows the Secretary of State to make an Order saving the provisions of a local Act not only before the commencement of the Act but at any time after, provided the local Act provision in question has not lapsed.
I think that, in view of the discussions we had earlier, it is probably unnecessary for me to go into the matter further, unless any hon. Member has any comments to make.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 25, line 40, leave out first "by" and insert "of".

In line 46, leave out from "Act" to end of line 3 on page 26 and insert:
(2) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument except from the operation of the foregoing subsection such provisions of any local Act as may be specified in the order (being provisions to which apart from the order that subsection would apply) and direct that the corresponding provisions of this Act or of any regulations having effect by virtue of this Act (which provisions shall be specified in the order) shall not have effect in the areas in which the specified provisions of the local Act have effect:
Provided that no order under this subsection shall be made in relation to a provision (being a provision of a local Act) which has ceased to have effect.—[Mr. J. N. Browne.]

Clause 30.—(SHORT TITLE, EXTENT AND COMMENCEMENT.)

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move, in page 26, line 26, after "thereof", to insert:
and paragraph 5 of the First Schedule thereto.
This is a drafting Amendment consequential on an Amendment in Committee that added the fifth paragraph to the First Schedule to include among the enactments relating to the dean of guild court functions that are unaffected by the Bill any local Act provisions specified by the Secretary of State by order.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Second Schedule.—(GENERAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO BUILDINGS AUTHORITIES WHICH ARE NOT DEAN OF GUILD COURTS.)

Mr. J. N. Browne: I beg to move, in page 28, line 18, to leave out "a committee" and to insert "committees".
For the convenience of the House, I think that we might discuss together this and the following Amendment, in pace 28, line 19.
These two Amendments which do not refer to minor warrant procedure or to burghs have been made at the request of the county councils and refer only to


counties. In order to discharge their functions over the wide areas which they cover and to make use of local knowledge, the number of county councillors on the building authority will be comparatively large. If they are sitting as the building authority in any particular area all the members will, of course, quite properly, receive notices of the sitting, but probably by arrangement it will be mainly those councillors who represent the area who will actually attend.
The Association of County Councils pointed out that there will be occasions when the only business before a building authority sitting in a certain area will be unopposed applications with which the master of works has expressed himself satisfied. When this occurs it seems to the county councils—and the Government agree—

Mr. Willis: The Government do not often agree with them.

Mr. Browne: More often than the hon. Member thinks. When this occurs it should not be necessary, even formally, to summon all the members of the authority to attend. The Amendment permits the authority to form a committee for the purpose of approving unopposed applications for warrants, but not minor ones. The applicant remains fully protected. If the committee refuses his application he can ask for the application to be reconsidered by the full buildings authority.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 28, line 19, leave out from "authority" to end of line 22 and insert:
and may delegate to any committee so appointed any of their functions—

(a) under section six of this Act, not being functions delegated by virtue of section seven of this Act to their clerk or to the master of works
(b) relating to the inspection of buildings; or
(c) relating to the disposal of incidental questions arising in proceedings on any application to them:
Provided that—

(i) an application shall not he dealt with under a delegation made by virtue of subparagraph (a) of this paragraph unless it is shown in the prescribed manner that there is no objection to the granting of the application on the part of the master of works or any other person on whom the application is required by regulations made under section

two of this Act to be served, and in any case where it is not so shown the application will he dealt with as if the said sub-paragraph (a) had not passed;
(ii) if any person is aggrieved by a refusal of a committee of a buildings authority to grant under a delegation made by virtue of sub-paragraph (a) of this paragraph an application made by him he may require his application to be referred to, and dealt with by, the buildings authority".—[Mr. J. N. Browne.]

Amendment proposed: In page 28, line 23, leave out "convener" and insert "chairman".—[Mr. J. N. Browne.]

Mr. Willis: May we have the reason for this change? What is the difference between a convener and a chairman? Do they not perform exactly the same functions?

Mr. Browne: This was done at the request of the Association of County Councils and, as always in the proceedings on the Bill, we have tried to meet its wishes where it is at all possible.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed: In page 28, line 25, leave out "convener" and insert "chairman".—[Mr. J. N. Browne.]

Mr. Willis: The hon. Member seems to think that he can get away with murder. What is the reason for this change? The hon. Member says that the Association of County Councils has asked for it. That may be so, but that does not answer the question. What reasons has the Association given for asking for the change, and what about the counties of cities? Have they agreed?

Mr. Browne: The change is being made to avoid confusion between the convener of the county and the convener of the committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed: In page 28, line 39, leave out from "authority" to end of line 41.—[Mr. J. N. Browne.]

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Rankin: We can congratulate the Government on the fact that, for once, under our guidance, they have seen reason and have allowed that reason to operate. They have resisted it so much during the evening that we might almost call this an occasion. It is worth while reading out the subsection which is to be changed. It is a pattern of the


redundancy which prevails throughout the Bill. Here it is:
The local authority may make rules regulating the dates of meetings of the buildings authority, so, however, that meetings of the authority shall be held from time to time and as often as may be necessary in some convenient place.
How many times the Government have stated the same thing over and over again in that little paragraph I do not know; nor do I know how they evaded possible disaster in those two closing words, "convenient place". A little slip there might have led to a very serious misunderstanding. When my hon. Friends and I were examining the Bill, we looked at this and we thought that were we just to say that the local authority might make rules regulating the dates of meetings of the building authority, and cut out all the other lines, we should achieve the object which the Government were seeking to achieve by using double the number of words, and that it could be very easily and more conveniently expressed in that way. So we congratulate the Government in following our lead, and we regret that we have had to wait until we came to discuss the Second Schedule before they took such a wise course.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed: In page 28, line 43, leave out "is" and insert "are". —[Mr. J. N. Browne.]

Mr. Rankin: This is another of the profound steps which the Government have taken, and once again I may say that this was a matter which my hon. Friends and I discussed for some time. But we reached different conclusions. If one looks at the sentence, and if one asked a child to analyse it, that is, to give a general analysis and not a particular analysis—I assume that the occupants of the Government Front Bench know the difference between those two processes, in view of the fact that they get steeped in a "decreet-arbitral" and all these other mysterious things—it would be discovered that the sentence could be read in this way:
The local authority shall provide such accommodation … as is required
and that in that accommodation there would be contained, as an extension of the subject,
such furniture, books and other things.

Therefore they were not separate from the accommodation, but were part of it and, "accommodation" being in the singular, it would appear that the verb should have been in the singular too.
I do not know whether the Government gave very deep thought to this matter. Obviously, at one stage in the drafting of the Bill there were strong influences in the Government which believed that the verb should be singular. Then, later—whether or not the matter went to the Cabinet I could not say—

Mr. Willis: It went to the dean of guild court.

Mr. Rankin: It may have gone there. But whether or not it was sent to the Cabinet I do not know. At least the conclusion was reached that "is" was not the proper verb, that it should be "are" and the subject was not "accommodation", and all the things that one was given with accommodation, but was
accommodation, and such furniture, books and other things.
Therefore—I hope they did not need to have a vote on it—they came to the conclusion that the verb ought not to be is", but should be "are".
I should like to know the arguments on this matter. I will call to my help, although I do not know whether he will come, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), who is even more versed than I am in the intricacies of these matters of high policy. He has had long experience of deciding when "is" should be used and when "are" should be used. Because of the confusion in the mind of the Government I am beginning to wonder whether or not I was correct when I thought it was "is" and when I advised my colleague that it should be "is", and therefore we decided to table our Amendment. Whether or not our argument leaked and got across to the Government side I do not know, but the Government are landing us in confusion at the end of the Bill just as they started in confusion at the beginning.
I do not know whether there is any reply to this or not. There must be sonic adequate reason for this change. Therefore, I shall hand over the reins of high policy to my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields who, from his singular position, may be able to advise


us whether we should employ the singular "is" or the plural "are" in the Clause which the Government are seeking to amend.

Mr. Ede: Heaven forbid that I should endeavour to criticise the way in which Scotsmen use the English language. That is a matter for them. My hon. Friend has said that there was some strong personality in the Government who had prevailed in this matter. After listening to the Scottish Ministers tonight, and remembering their appalling exhibition yesterday at Question Time, I would inquire from him who of them could possibly have been the strong personality?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. J. N. Browne: I beg to move, in page 28, line 45, at the end to insert:
12. References in this Schedule to a buildings authority are references to a buildings authority which is not a dean of guild court.
This is a purely drafting Amendment, a matter of style.

Mr. Willis: I cannot understand why these words should be at the end of the Schedule when they are already at the head of the Schedule. They occur in the heading; why do we need a paragraph at the end to say the same thing? If it is correct to do this in the case of the Second Schedule why is it not to be done in the case of the First and the Third Schedules? That would be the logic of it.
What is the justification for making the Amendment? The Joint Under-Secretary of State has said that this is a matter of style, but we are concerned with law. We are concerned with making something intelligible to the ordinary county councillor and town councillor in Scotland. They have to deal with these matters. Why should we clutter up the Bill with all sorts of meaningless nonsense because lawyers consider this a question of style?
A phrase is put into an Act of Parliament because it means something and it is necessary to put it in. Otherwise we might think the Act meant something else. What is the justification for including this paragraph? None of these provisions could apply to anything else, coming, as they do, under the heading which says that they are

provisions relating to buildings authorities which are not dean of guild courts.
If we put in the new paragraph 12 we should miss out the heading. I suggest that would be a matter of style.
What is this style business? The Solicitor-General for Scotland will no doubt give us a learned dissertation on the question of legal style and tell us why it becomes necessary to put in these words. I can see that he is looking it up in a brief. I hope we shall have the benefit of his advice. Undoubtedly this will be another of those things which goes back to the Parliament of 1605, or may be earlier. It may be an old Scots custom of 1550. I do not know, but we ought to be told. Probably the Solicitor-General is the proper person to do it, because he is more familiar with legal style than is the Joint Under-Secretary. Having been warned that this question would be raised, perhaps the Solicitor-General will now let us have the answer.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: I have listened to many speeches from my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) in many Committees and I have always felt that he was completely right and the Government were completely wrong. This time I think my hon. Friend has completely misunderstood the matter and that he was all at sea. The Government are quite right here. The Amendment clearly has been proposed because it is a matter of legal style.
The difficulty my hon. Friend is in is that he seems to think that the purpose of legal style is to encourage clarity. Of course the purpose of legal style is to make a thing as unintelligible and incomprehensible as possible so that lawyers may keep in employment. I am quite sure this was considered very bad legal style. I can see the lawyers and draftsmen looking at it and saying, "This is almost intelligible as it stands; is there not something we can do about it?" So they put forward this Amendment. I am convinced that must be the reason for it.
After all, if Acts of Parliament were written in a style which was clear and intelligible and in good English there would be very little work for the lawyers and Parliamentary Counsel. Most dreadful of all, there might be no work at all for either the Solicitor-General or the Lord Advocate. We might not need


them sitting with their feet up on the Table looking up reference books to find answers.
I should be interested to hear from the Government whether my hon. Friend is right, or whether the view I have expressed is right.

Mr. Browne: I have listened to many speeches by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis), but I have never heard him take so long simply to ask me what I meant by style. The position is quite simple. The only reference to the Second Schedule is in subsection (3) of Clause 2. There would be nothing very wrong in leaving the Bill as it stands, but the title of the Schedule does not have the force of law. We thought it would he for the convenience of those county councillors to whom the hon. Member was referring if, as a matter of style, we put it in the Schedule itself rather than in the title. There is nothing more sinister—

Mr. Willis: If that is true of the Second Schedule, should not we do the same for the First Schedule, because the title of the First Schedule has no effect in law? Should not we do the same for the Third Schedule and the other Schedules?

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Browne: Anyone reading these Schedules will realise that they refer to the dean of guild court, etc. The Second Schedule could easily be mistaken for a Schedule that had a wider reference than county authorities. For that reason, and in order to make the Bill as correct as possible, my right hon. Friend thought that this Amendment, slight as it was, should be put down.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Third Schedule.—(MATTERS WHICH MAY BE PROVIDED FOR BY REGULATIONS UNDER PARAGRAPH (a) OF SUBSECTION (4) OF SECTION 2.)

Mr. J. N. Browne: I beg to move, in page 29, line 6, after "specifications", to insert "estimates of costs".
Among the information that building authorities ought to have is the estimated cost of the work, if for no other reason than to fix the fee and to classify the works as major or minor. In any case, the inclusion of "estimates of costs" is now almost universal practice.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. J. N. Browne: I beg to move, in page 29, line 24, at the end to insert:
8. The notification to buildings authorities of the dates of commencement and completion of operations carried out in pursuance of warrants.
The building authority must have this information in order to make suitable arrangements for inspection.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Fourth Schedule.—(MATTERS IN REGARD TO WHICH BUILDING STANDARDS REGULATIONS MAY BE MADE.)

Mr. Hannan: I beg to move, in page 29, line 32, at the end to insert:
safety precautions to be observed in the installation of gas and electricity services".
Matters which will be the subject of building standards regulations are outlined by the Government in the Fourth Schedule. By Clause 11 the Secretary of State is given power to appoint a Committee which he may consult. Some of the subjects were discussed in Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) and my hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) dealt with standards. I dealt with fire precautions. As yet there is no specific reference to the two matters which we mention in the Amendment, that is, gas and electricity services. I hope that the Government will see the value of an Amendment of this character. Developments are taking place in these two great industries month by month. It is right that in building standards regulations the new efficient methods of distribution of these two services should be incorporated.
Attention has been drawn recently in lurid and misleading reports—and I say this on the basis of knowledge which I have—to accidents taking place with gas. A high proportion of the accidents are due to causes other than genuine accidents. The gas authorities are perturbed that Press reports convey the impression that, because of some deficiency in their appliances or some leakage of their mains, negligence can be or is inferred and laid at their door. This is resented by them. The Scottish Gas Board goes a long way in trying to prevent these leakages and the use of imperfect appliances. The gas boards are national organisations under the scrutiny of public Acts of Parliament.
When headlines appear in the newspapers about some gassing tragedy, they draw the uninformed reader's attention to it and, If he does not read the context, he gets the wrong impression. An Amendment of this character, if not in these words, shall therefore be made in order to give the public greater confidence.
There is a side to this problem which is not usually disclosed. A high proportion of the deaths which take place are not due to deficiencies in the equipment but to the wilful acts of the persons who are found dead.
In discussing safety precautions, I should like to point out that a new type of gas cooker will be available in the near future. It is to be made available first to people aged 60 and over, because most of these tragedies take place in that age range. The cooker has a small pilot light which expands a metal and which then allows a greater flow of gas. It sometimes happens that a pot or a kettle boils over, extinguishing the light while there is the full flow of gas, but under this new system the gas will not continue to flow at the same rate but will revert to the small jet. This, therefore, acts as a safety valve. If there are further developments of this character in progress it is right that the Board's standard regulations should be brought fully up to date.
We discussed in Committee the problems of electriity supply. There are no rules or regulations which we can fashion which will prevent the householder, by negligence, ignorance or wilful act, from doing himself or his family or his home some harm. Everyone recognises that. In considering the provision of houses and building standards, are we sure that sufficient electrical points are being installed in houses?
I am told that two-thirds of the fires which start from electrical causes are due to the ignorant use by the householder of his electrical plugs or to his crossing wires, or to his using a greater electrical load than the system will take. If the householder has four appliances connected to one plug he is asking for trouble. This can easily happen in these days of television, radio, vacuum cleaners, irons end the full range of electrical equipment now being used in the home. Surely we should incorporate in the Bill a

provision to provide a safeguard for people and property.
I hope that the Government will see the value of an Amendment of this character. I am quite sure that some of my hon. Friends will have something to say in support of it, and I conclude by again asking the Government to look at this question because of the frightful waste that is taking place and the risks that are run. Let me repeat that while we here can discuss regulations and lay down procedures, it needs the co-operation and the great care of parents particularly to safeguard their young people. Where perhaps our greater duty lies is to the elderly and the infirm living by themselves, and whatever modern facilities there are for safeguarding them against these horrors which occasionally happen. I think—and I think it will be the opinion of the House —that we should take all those steps to achieve that purpose.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: I beg to second the Amendment.
I should like to say a few words on the point which my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) has been making, on electrical equipment. I should like to know from the Government why they have not included a specific reference to electrical standards and also gas standards in the Bill, and why it has been left at this late stage for an Amendment to be moved by my hon. Friend. It is well-known that there have been very big changes in standards of electrical equipment over the last twenty-five years. In the house in which I live, which is modern and was built, presumably, according to the latest regulations in these matters, there are nothing but rather heavy 13-amp. 3-pin plugs, incorporating 'their own fuses, so that there is the maximum amount of safety. Indeed, I believe that the arrangement incorporates an actual switching mechanism in the wall socket itself.
We all know how, in older houses, it is quite common to have electric fires and other quite heavy electrical equipment run from two-pin plugs, so that there is a good deal of danger, if these plugs are overloaded, of the wires becoming heated and causing a fire. It is very important that we should insist on the very best standards in these things. It would also be a tremendous advantage, as a byproduct of good regulations, if we could


get a measure of standardisation of electrical equipment. I suppose that there is no hon. Member of the House who has not had the experience of having to buy plugs for his house, finding that everything he has does not fit any socket in the house. If we could get uniform regulations it would be a great emancipation for the ordinary, ignorant, non-electrical householder. I think that it would be agreed that, as both electricity and gas contain considerable dangers of fire, building regulations in relation to their safety are extremely important. I am interested to know why the Government have not included specific reference to these matters in the Bill.

Mr. Woodburn: I should like to add a word to what has been said about safety precautions. We are dealing here mainly with building regulations, and the point which my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mir. Hannan) made about electrical points is very important. In many cases, one point is placed in a room, with no regard, perhaps, to where the bedside table will be or where the apparatus will be used. It might be on the other side of the room, so the wires have to be trailed across the room to the point, which is in the wrong place, and that in itself creates a danger, because if the wires are interfered with, or become worn, the heat which is generated may start a fire. If we could have the point situated where the apparatus is to be used, it would reduce the danger.
The other point relates to wiring. It is no use today, when we are asking people to make use of electricity, to give them a 5-amp. wire. Nowadays, if they can afford it, they will probably want an electric blanket. Also, they will want a light at the side of the bed, and they may, in addition, put an electric fire on the plug. As these things mount up, there is danger. If only one piece of apparatus is on at a time, there will be no danger, but with them all on at once, in the cold weather for instance, something may well go wrong. My own house is very heavily wired, but, the other night, when the weather was very cold, and all the rooms were occupied, the mains fuse went. I mean the electricity supplier's fuse, not our own house fuse. If these things are not given sufficient wiring to carry the modern load, all kinds of dangers may arise.
9.15 p.m.
I am all in favour of safety plugs and sockets, but when a person sets out to buy these three-pin plugs with their inbuilt fuses and all the apparatus connected with them—I notice it myself, and I do not consider myself a poor person—he finds that the expense is very great. He cannot easily buy many of them at 6s. 6d. or 7s. 6d. apiece for use in the rooms of his house, each one, perhaps, being merely for a small electric fire. The manufacturers have done wonderful work in providing safe plugs, but I feel that they really ought to devise things more suited to the pockets of the great mass of people who are bound to use them.
I should like to pay a tribute to the gas board in the South of Scotland. Recently, it has been going round to inspect all the old apparatus used by old-age pensioners, taking out all the unsafe equipment and putting in safe equipment for the old people to use. That is a most important function. I believe that the board has been doing it free of charge. A great service from the point of view of safety has been done, and a good deal more ought to be done.
I often wonder how it is, when gas points are placed at the fireside, exposed to a child's fingers, that more of them are not turned on and more disasters do not occur. It may be that more precautions ought to be taken in the design of gas cookers, not only so that the cooker itself will go back to delivering a small amount of gas only once the light has gone out, but also to provide keys or taps which cannot be touched by children who may turn on the gas by accident.
The Amendment suggests that this ought to be one of the matters in respect of which building standards regulations may be made. While I counsel caution so that we do not go beyond the bounds of practical housewifery, or forget such things as cost and normal practice, I suggest that it should be one of the duties of those responsible for the design and building of new houses to see that sufficient electric points are put in, that wiring adequate to carry a sufficient load is put in, and that provision is made for normal developments. If these things are done, that would be a step towards ensuring the safety of those who will occupy the houses.

Mr. J. N. Browne: I approach the Amendment in the same spirit as right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. It is important and should be given proper weight.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) will realise that the regulations are not confined to the subjects mentioned in the Schedule. By Clause 3 (I). my right hon. Friend may include
such other matters … as appear to him … to be relevant.
The Schedule is a pointer, but no more than that. The Amendment underlines, as does the Schedule, what I agree is a very important matter.
The Guest Report, in paragraph 165, attached special importance to the safety of electric installations. Following that, apart from the regulations, Clause 8 makes special provision for a certificate procedure. It would he quite in order to include electric points in the regulations. I also draw attention to the booklet on home safety which we have recently issued in Scotland, in which this matter was given great weight. A great deal of thought was devoted to exactly what recommendations we should make.
It is interesting to note that the Guest Committee did not consider that the same dangers arose from gas installations as from electrical installations. The hon. Member for Maryhill has rendered a service to everybody and to the gas industry by his speech. Of course, one must be worried about taps on the floor, but we can ensure, both under building regulations and through teaching the public, that safety taps are used.
I am advised that the Amendment is not aptly worded as it refers to
precautions to be observed in the installation of gas and electricity services".
It appears from the wording that the Amendment is more concerned with the act of installation than with the services when installed. Precautions during installation are important, of course, but they are more appropriate to the Building Operations Regulations than to the Building Standards Regulations.
I can assure the hon. Member that in the regulations my right hon. Friend will deal with gas and electricity safety precautions. I am advised that the Schedule as now worded covers the points the hon.
Member raised. Line 30 refers to "Fire precautions", line 41 to "Heating and artificial lighting", and line 42 to Services, installations, and ancillary equipment".
In conclusion, I hope that the hon. Member for Maryhill does not feel that we are brushing the Amendment aside. We agree that the points he raised are of vital importance, but my right hon. Friend assures him that he will do what he wants.

Mr. Woodburn: Would the words "fire precautions" cover precautions against people being gassed? Do not the words
Matters in regard to which building standards regulations may be made
imply that regulations may not be made regarding matters which are not mentioned? The Solicitor-General can tell us whether the legal position is that, when one specifies something, all matters not specified are automatically excluded.

Mr. Browne: That is not the case. The heading has not the force of law. Under Clause 3 (1) my right hon. Friend can include in regulations all such other matters as appear to him to be relevant. We must be guided by the Building Standards Advisory Committee. We have exactly the same wish as hon. Members opposite.

Mr. Hannan: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that one of the main purposes of the Bill, as appears from the Long Title, is to
Make as respects Scotland new provision for safety, health and other matters …
Could not the hon. Gentleman go a little further and say that at least some reference to gas precautions will be added to the Schedule?

Mr. Browne: By leave of the House, I think that I would be in order in saying that we shall consider this point again. I will not make any promises, because I had prepared my reply to the hon. Member most carefully.

Amendment negatived.

Orders of the Day — Fifth Schedule.—(PROCEDURE FOR DIRECTIONS UNDER SECTION 4.)

Amendments made: In page 30, line 20, leave out
under section four of this Act".

In line 21, leave out "such".

In line 22, leave out "such".

In line 23, leave out "such".—[Mr. J. N. Browne.]

Orders of the Day — Sixth Schedule.—(RECOVERY OF EXPENSES BY CHARGING ORDER.)

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move, in page 30, line 41, to leave out "(which" and to insert:
and any land held in connection therewith (all of which
The Amendment is designed to meet a point raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) in Committee when he moved an Amendment which had the same intention but went a little too wide inasmuch as it would have applied to land which was not in the same ownership. We have to limit the land over which the charge is to be a burden to land in the ownership of the person who owns the actual building, and that is what this Amendment does.

Amendment agreed to.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move, in page 31, line 7, at the end to insert:
ground annuals, stipends and standard charges in lieu of stipends".
Under the Bill at the moment the prior charges laid down in sub-paragraph (a) are feu duties and teinds. The Amendment would extend them to:
ground annuals, stipends and standard charges in lieu of stipends".
The ground annuals, although they have a rather different history from feu duties, are from a practical investment point of view very much in the same position. There are technical legal differences, but the Church of Scotland has large investments in feu duties and ground annuals, and they are treated by trustees as being, broadly speaking, in the same position as investment and they are equally charges on the land in question.
With regard to stipends and standard charges in lieu of stipends, the stipend is the annual payment which is made to the clergy or the Church in Scotland, originally out of teinds, but under the 1925 Act we have what is called a standard charge in lieu of stipends as well as stipends, and the standard charge is a direct burden on the land.
What we are doing is to give existing charges their existing priority and to make

the charging order come after the existing charges which are set down in the Bill as it stands and in this Amendment.

Mr. Woodburn: Are all the researches of the Solicitor-General for Scotland completed? Could he not find any other prior charges to come between the local authorities and the recovery of their money? This sounds like "Uncle Tom Cobley and all." Surely the right hon. and learned Gentleman could have found some other obstacles to the local authorities getting the charges for their expenses? Has he exhausted the list, or will he be able to discover some more later?

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Rankin: In Committee, we resisted an Amendment which merely governed teinds and feu duties. Obviously, when the Government extend the burden still further our opposition will be intensified.
As I pointed out last week on the Deer Bill, the Government are the political vassals of the land trust, and here we have the land trust in operation. It is the interests of the trust which the Government are serving. We started on the first page of the Bill by serving one vested interest which operates in the City of Glasgow, and now, at the end of the Bill, the Government extend their services to another vested interest.
That is the situation with which we are faced and which we have to consider in view of what is happening in Edinburgh, Dundee, Glasgow, Aberdeen and all over Scotland where these burdens which go to the superiors of the land are inflicting heavy charges on property in places like the Gorbals, an area which is notorious all over the world. Once the demands of the superiors have been satisfied there is not sufficient left to the property owner to keep the property in a decent state of repair, and it therefore begins to deteriorate.
As a result of Bills like this, local authorities have to bring such property into a decent state of repair. They have to make a falling investment into a good one, and while they are entitled to recover their expenses in making the property a sound investment they are at the end of the queue, while the person who ranks first in the demands on the


income which may come from the property after it has been repaired is the one who did nothing to help that process, the superior.
The superior sits levying his charges almost as a toll. He is the Dick Turpin, although we designate him today by a grander title. He is making a levy in a nicer fashion and from a more gilded chamber than that in which Dick lived in his day; but that is what is happening. We believe that it is wrong and that the public authority which spends public money on the property so that people can continue to live there should have first claim on the revenues to come from the rehabilitated property.
The Government say that the superior of the land must get his "cut" before the local authority touches the money. It may well be that when the long queue which the Government have created is satisfied there will be nothing left for the local authority which made it possible for the property to produce an income, and that the income will be swallowed up by the persons who should, at least, not have first call on the money.
We were opposed to this business in the first place and we oppose it more vigorously now that the queue is to be extended. I hope that before we leave this schedule the Government will have second thoughts and in another place—and what other other place could be more suitable; it would be almost an act of redemption—bring forward an Amendment to reverse the process and give the local authority the first call on the money.

Mr. Willis: I am amazed at this tenderness on the part of the Government towards the ground superior and, like my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin), I cannot understand why such tenderness has to be shown to the ground superior, the owner of the feu, or, for that matter, the owner of the ground annual. If there is anybody who has done nothing at all, it is the owner of the feu. These people have done nothing at all to maintain or to earn their income and yet they are put as the first people to have a claim upon the income. Incidentally. I do not think that they will be the first people to have a claim.
My experience is—and this is why I am surprised that the Solicitor-General has

come here with this suggestion—that the people who take the first claim on any estate are the lawyers. Lawyers charges are always deducted before any of the other charges. I do not think that anyone with any experience of this would quarrel with that view. I would have thought that the Solicitor-General, if he is going to be as tender as all this, might have been honest and included the lawyers.
Why should the feu superior be given a priority over local authorities which have expended money in the interests of the citizens, in the interests of maintaining the property, and in the interests, in fact. of maintaining the value of the sites and the property? They cannot get their money. Why should a local authority be treated like that?
A local authority is acting in the interests of the community. By its actions it is benefiting these people. Having protected the community, the Government then say, "You must not get the money you have spent". The first charge in this list is to be the feu duty payable to somebody who, as we know from experience, has descended from somebody who probably has not even a title deed to the land. This seems to be quite wrong. Surely a local authority has as much right to be treated fairly as the owner of the feu duty or the owner of the ground annual What are the reasons why this is to be done? I cannot understand this. It seems most unfair to the local authority and to the ratepayers in the district that they should be compelled to pay some thing and unable to claim it back until every Tom, Dick or Harry who has done nothing at all gets his payment. That is a curious sense of priorities.
One of my hon. Friends said that Socialism is the language of priority. I hope that it is not this type of priority. The priorities are all wrong. They may be in accordance with the political and philosophical concepts of the party opposite, but they are not in accordance with ours. I, like my hon. Friend, am very much opposed to the Amendment.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I have been accused of pandering to vested interests. I think that was the phrase used by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin). I


would have put on record that the only representations I have had from any interest concerned have been from the Church of Scotland, the Free Church of Scotland and the Episcopal Church of Scotland. If the hon. Member for Govan regards these as vested interests which ought to be put down in some way, I would profoundly disagree with him.
I wish that to be placed on record because the Church of Scotland is the largest holder of feu duties and ground annuals in Scotland. The Free Church of Scotland holds very large holdings. The Church of Scotland holds them, in many cases not because it wants to, but because under old settlements and old Acts it had to hold these particular investments in order to endow parishes. These are the people to whom hon. Members opposite are referring as vested interests. The whole thing is disgraceful. It shows the way in which the Opposition are approaching the Bill, and it disgusts me, particularly when I remember that when hon. Members opposite were in power they did exactly the same thing. They gave priority to persons who owned the feu duties and the teinds.

Mr. Willis: That does not make it right.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: That does not make it right. I merely say that I would like to hear a little consistency in these matters and not the filibustering nonsense that we have had in our discussion of the Amendment so far.

Mr. Rankin: To give the right hon. and learned Member time to regain his temper—

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I have not lost it.

Mr. Rankin: We apologise for having rattled the Solicitor-General so badly, but surely he is not going to take the churches, as one example, from the list which appears in the Amendment?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I am merely saying that the churches are the largest individual holders of feu duties and ground annuals, and that they and they alone receive stipends and standard charges in lieu of stipends. I merely say that if the Amendment is not

accepted the main damage done will be to the Church of Scotland and the Free Church of Scotland. If hon. Members opposite are going into the Lobby to vote on the Amendment I hope that they will bear that fact in mind and be prepared to face the consequences of so doing.

Mr. Willis: Why does not the legal profession wait for its fees until the other interests are paid?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: There is no mention of the legal profession. Legal charges are not real burdens on land, as are ground annuals and stipends. The lawyer very often has to whistle for his money, as I know very well myself.

Mr. Willis: Not in these cases.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: We are not accustomed to such heat from the Solicitor-General, but we ought to welcome any sign of life that comes from him. He has accused the Opposition of behaving badly over the Amendment, but I thought his speech rather disgraceful, because it attempted to smear the Opposition and impugn their motives in raising the matter. The right hon. and learned Member used one of the oldest and most demagogic of tricks. Out of a group of people he took one group—the churches —which he knows will arouse an immediate emotional response.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I chose that group because I had been accused of pandering to representations made by certain vested interests, and I wished to state precisely from whom they had come. They came from the churches, and from the churches alone.

Mr. Thomson: I did not hear the remarks about pandering to representations. I may not have been listening very carefully at that stage. Although the churches may have made their representations—and nobody is more entitled to do so than they—the fact is that the feu duties that we are talking about are owned only in small part by the churches. There are many other owners of feu duties who do not have the same popular support as the churches and whose mention by the Solicitor-General would not arouse the same response.
I have always understood that hundreds of square miles of the area from which I


came is owned by one of the oldest and noblest families in Scotland. That family has been drawing its feu duties from this for many centuries. If its name was used by a Government spokesman, I should not think that it would rouse a great deal of enthusiastic support for the proposition that a ducal landowner should have priority over a local authority trying to do work of local welfare in rescuing property.
9.45 p.m.
This sort of proposition from the Solicitor-General for Scotland will not bear examination. Surely it is quite immoral to put the land superior before the local authority in circumstances in which local authorities and ordinary citizens are dipping into their pockets to rescue property and to make something of it. So far as the churches are involved in these feu duties as land superiors they must face that argument.
We go on to the other source of the churches' revenue, which is indicated as
ground annuals, stipends and standard charges in lieu of stipends.
I wish to seek information from the Solicitor-General for Scotland, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman may have leave of the House to speak again. I wish to know what sort of proportion of the whole is involved in these things and I should be glad to be enlightened about how the process works, It has always appeared to me an indefensible method of financing the work which the churches do.
No one would disagree that the stipends of ministers of the churches involved are not excessive. I take the view that one of the hardest hit groups of people in the country in relation to their work is the ministers. Their incomes, more than the incomes of most people, have remained low and they have certain expenses. Hon. Members who have had their own difficulties in this respect can sympathise with individual ministers. But that does not mean that we should justify this kind of system.
I have not wide information about this matter, but a few instances come to my mind. I can think of one distinguished constituent of the Secretary of State for Scotland—I do not know whether he votes for the right hon. Gentleman, I am not at all sure that he would vote for the right hon. Gentleman's Labour opponent

—a man with a long record of service in Scotland, whose habit, on principle, from time to time when teinds were sought from him was to oppose the paying of the teind on the ground that he did not see why he should be forced to pay money towards the maintenance of a church of which he was not a supporter. That person, whose service to Scotland was a fine one from his point of view, was himself an agnostic, yet he was forced to pay to help to maintain a church which he did not support.
I recall another family which I knew well over many years, a farming family and one of the finest I have ever had the good fortune to know, whose members were strong Free Church people. They found themselves—I do not understand how this came about; perhaps the Secretary of State for Scotland can explain it to me—in the position of having to pay teinds for the support of the Church of Scotland, which was not their church. On principle they strongly resented this.
Giving priority to these churches raises the question of the whole system which is involved here. It is a question of principle which I think is involved. We are entitled to more rational support for this Amendment from the Solicitor-General for Scotland than we have had, and to more information. On such a matter as this it is not good enough for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to make the sort of cheap debating points which he has made.

Mr. Ross: I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland, who has been listening to this debate, will think over the arguments which have been presented I hope that he has observed the display of temper on the part of his right hon. and learned Friend and has made duo note of it as something not very becoming in a Law Officer of the Crown—[Laughter.]

Mr. Rankin: Why that rude laughter?

Mr. Ross: We are not dealing with some academic position, but with a Schedule which refers to
sections nine, ten or twelve of this Act".
The Government, supported by the Solicitor-General for Scotland, have laid the responsibility upon a local authority where, under Clause 9, a building has been constructed without a warrant or the life of a building has expired and


requires work to be done upon it, to spend money, not a hundred years ago or five hundred years ago, but when the Bill comes into force. Under Clause 9, local authorities are to require buildings to conform to building standards and are to spend money to that end, and under Clause 12 they are given power to take action in respect of buildings found 10 be dangerous. We shall presumably agree to pass the Bill without a Division because we all want it so as to ensure the safety of buildings, and to see that they conform to reasonable standards in line with modern ideas, and are not dangerous. We therefore require local authorities to spend money.
When the local authority has spent money in doing what it should do, then the sum of money is commuted into an annual charge, at £6 for every £100 expended. We may discover then that there are already annual charges, not on the property but on the land. If they are on the property, they are discounted. Am I right? Perhaps the Solicitor-General for Scotland will tell me. If there are annual charges on the land, they do matter and get priority. The local authority has just spent, say, £200 and requires to get £12 a year. If there is a feu duty on the land for some land superior it takes first place. Who the land superior is, is beside the point. This is a matter of principle.
The annual payment in respect of the tenure of that land, payable to a land superior is, say, £12 a year and it must be paid rather than the £12 to the local authority, which has just spent the money. That is what it comes to. The Solicitor-General for Scotland knows as well as I do that the local authority, which has just spent, say, £200, has yet to receive a penny piece for its work, while the feu duty has been paid year after year and century after century—

Mr. Speaker: A feu duty is not in the Amendment, is it?

Mr. Rankin: Yes.

Mr. Ross: I do not know whether you appreciate, Mr. Speaker, exactly what we are discussing. We are discussing an Amendment—

Mr. Speaker: The Amendment before the House is that in page 31, line 7, at the end, to insert:

ground annuals, stipends and standard charges in lieu of stipends".
That is all the discussion can be confined to.

Mr. Ross: I have no right to talk about feu duty?

Mr. Speaker: I said that there was nothing about feu duties in the Amendment. The hon. Member was talking about feu duties.

Mr. Ross: I shall be glad to talk about ground annuals. Ground annuals were introduced for lands on which there was a stipulation against sub-infeudation. It may have been that the land was entailed and so, as it could not be feud because of the actual objections to alienation laid upon it, the superiors of the land got round that by leasing the land. The annual payment in respect of the lease was called a ground annual, so I presume I am now in order in talking about a ground annual. There was an element of perpetuity in some of these ground annuals. We may take some in the part of the world from which I come, in which a lease was granted for a piece of land for 9,999 years. If there were any difference between the ground annual and a feu duty I should like to know what it is. In all respects they are the same thing. However, I shall talk about the ground annual.
We should appreciate that some of these lands were leased in this way, or a tack—to use a Scots expression—was given, very often because it was felt that the person prepared to give the tack was not anxious to answer many questions about his title to the land. We get this in respect of lands which formerly belonged to the Church, not the Reformed Church, but those lands proved quite an attraction to the barons of Scotland at the time of the Reformation. As I said last week, the gleam in their eyes was not so much zeal for a new religion as for a new land grab. Those lands belonged to the various abbeys.
These ground annuals, in the same way as the feu duty, have been paid for centuries to particular families. We had discussions about them in this House over a long time. The Government dealt with the subject in 1914 and again in the 'twenties in relation to feudal casualties


which included this question of ground annuals. Here we are on the same old business. When the Government decided that this payment should be commuted into the question of an annual payment, they were faced with the problem that there were already encumbrances on the land and there arose the question of giving priorities. The Solicitor-General said that no representations had been made to him by landed interests. We do not need to make representations to a Tory Government to look after the landlords. It becomes an automatic action with them.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman was quite right in saying that the only representations made to him came from the Church of Scotland. The Government forgot the Church and that is why we have this Amendment. If anyone forgot the Church, it was the Government. Our concern is not about who are the holders of these things, but about the principle of the matter. This matter does not arise unless a local authority has spent money. It has spent money through an Act of Parliament which had the support of the Solicitor-General. They having spent that money in respect of property in connection with which, by its very nature, there is difficulty in obtaining payment now, the Government say the local authority must take its place at the end of the queue. The first person who must be served in relation to annual charges is the land superior. It is not the Church of Scotland which is the land superior in Kilmarnock but the Lord Howard de Walden. After that there are to be the tiends. There are not very many of them in Scotland. The same applies to stipends. The Solicitor-General for Scotland has not justified the priorities at all.
10.0 p.m.
If the Solicitor-General for Scotland wants the Bill to work and local authorities to take necessary action, the local authorities are entitled to look forward to the possibility of a return for their money. It is not fair for the right hon. Gentleman to give this list of A, B and C, all taking priority over the local councils in respect of money that is immediately spent. By this means the Solicitor-General for Scotland is discouraging local authorities from taking action.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman to think again about feu duties. I do not know why feu holders should be given priority over local authorities, when local authorities have just spent the money, whereas the title to feu duty is lost in the mists of antiquity. Though the feu holders may have bought their rights over the past few years, they retain them in respect of something that happened a long time ago. Mr. Tom Johnston, a former Secretary of State for Scotland who I am sure the present Secretary of State would like to emulate, described the holders of feu duties as "the baronial old men of the sea". They are evidently still on the shores and dear to the heart of the Solicitor-General.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Seventh Schedule.—(EVACUATION OF DANGEROUS BUILDINGS.)

Amendments made: In page 31, line 35, leave out "such" and insert "the"

In page 31, line 43, leave out "such" and insert "the".—[The Solicitor-General for Scotland.]

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move, in page 32, line 21, after "respects", to insert:
except in so far as otherwise agreed".
The purpose of the Amendment is to avoid the rigidity which the Clause would otherwise have. It enables the tenant to go back on different terms, provided, but only provided, that he agrees with his landlord.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Eighth Schedule.—(TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS.)

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move, in page 32, line 38, after "Act", to insert:

"(a) to a building for the construction of which an application for approval has been made, and not disposed of, before the commencement of this Act, and
(b)."
The Amendment refers to an application which, on the date of the coming into force of the building regulations, has been made but has not yet been disposed of. In such a case, there is no reason why the applicant should not be able, if he wishes, to take advantage of Clause 4, which permits relaxation of the code in approved cases.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 33, line 12, leave out "to" and insert "of".—[The Solicitor-General for Scotland.]

Orders of the Day — Ninth Schedule.—(MINOR AND CON-SEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS OF ENACTMENTS.)

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move, in page 34, line 40, to leave out from "1935" to the end of line 12 on page 35 and to insert:
for section seventeen there shall be substituted the following section, that is to say:—
'17.—(1) A buildings authority within the meaning of the Building (Scotland) Act, 1959, may refuse to grant a warrant under section six of that Act for the erection of a new building, which, if erected in accordance with the plans, specifications and other information submitted with the application for the warrant, would be a building to which this section applies, if they are not satisfied that the said plans, specifications and other information show that provision will be made for such means of entrance and egress, and of such accommodation for the loading and unloading of vehicles or picking up and setting down of passengers, or the fuelling of vehicles, as may seem necessary to the buildings authority for preventing or limiting interference with traffic:
Provided that—

(a) the buildings authority shall, as soon as may be after such application is made, consult the highway authority or such officer of the highway authority as may be nominated by them for the purpose and the chief officer of police for the district, and the power conferred by this section shall not be exercised except after such consultation as aforesaid;
(b) this subsection shall not apply in a case where the buildings authority are satisfied that either—

(i) the character of the new building is such as not to be likely to cause increased vehicular traffic along any road adjacent thereto; or
(ii) satisfactory arrangements have been or will be, made for limiting interference with the traffic along such road.
(2) This section applies to any building whereof the external or containing walls contain a space of not less than two hundred and fifty thousand cubic feet measured in accordance with directions given by the Secretary of State, and to any place of public resort, refreshment house, station for public service vehicles, petrol filling station or garage used or to be used in connection with any trade or business; and in this section the expression "the erection of a new building" includes the following operations, that is to say,—

(a) the re-erection, wholly or partially, of any building of which an outer wall is pulled clown or burnt down to or within ten feet of the surface of the ground adjoining

the lowest storey of the building, and of any frame building so far pulled down or burnt down so as to leave only the framework of the lowest storey;
(b) the conversion into a dwelling house of any building not originally constructed for human habitation, or the conversion into more than one dwelling house of a building originally constructed as one dwelling house only;
(c) the re-conversion into a dwelling house of any building which has been discontinued as, or appropriated for any purpose other than that of, a dwelling house;
(d) the making of any addition to an existing building by raising any part of the roof, by altering a wall, or making any projection from the building, but so far as regards the addition only; and
(e) the roofing or covering over of an open space between walls or buildings'.
and subsections (5) and (10) of section twenty-five of the said Act of 1935 shall cease to have effect".
This lengthy Amendment is a drafting Amendment. Instead of legislating by reference, we have set out at length Section 17 of the Restriction of Ribbon Development Act as it now applies under the Bill. It will be convenient to those who have to work the Bill to have a self-contained Section 17 of the 1935 Act written into the Bill.

Mr. Woodburn: I should like to congratulate the Government on doing the sensible thing instead of having a Bill by references, because a Bill by references is a great nuisance to people who have to work it daily.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. J. N. Browne: I beg to move, in page 36, line 6, at the beginning to insert:
(1) The Minister may by regulations exempt from the provisions of sections two to five of this Act buildings or extensions of such classes as may be specified in the regulations.
In re-enacting in the Schedule the Thermal Insulation (Industrial Buildings) Act, 1957, as it applies to Scotland, we inadvertently lost the power of the Minister of Power to give exemption from certain provisions by regulations. The Amendment puts it back.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 36, line 14, leave out "this section" and insert "the last foregoing subsection."—[Mr. J. N. Browne.]

Orders of the Day — Tenth Schedule.—(ENACTMENTS REPEALED.)

Amendments made: In page 38, line 41, at end insert:


25 &amp; 26 Geo. 5. c. 47.
Restriction of Ribbon Development Act, 1935.
In section twenty five, subsections (5) and (10)

In line 47, at end insert:


10 &amp; 11 Geo. 6. c. 39.
Statistics of Trade Act, 1947.
Sections fourteen and eighteen.

In page 39, line 6, column 3, after "fifty", insert "in subsection (1)".

In line 22, at the end insert:


5 &amp; 6 Eliz. 2. c. 40.
Thermal Insulation (Industrial Buildings) Act, 1957>
In section twelve, subsection (4) and (7).


—[Mr. J. N. Browne.]

10.7 p.m.

Mr. Maclay: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I do not want to take up much time, but I should like to cover one or two points which it is essential to say at this stage of the Bill. I should like, first, to thank all those hon. Members on both sides of the House who have put a great deal of constructive work into the Bill. I am particularly grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General for Scotland and my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the care and trouble which they have taken in the detailed working out and explanation of so much which is complex in the Bill.
As is natural, there have been points on which there has been disagreement, but it is fair to say that the principle of the Bill and the large bulk of its detailed provisions have commanded very general approval and support.
In drawing up the new administrative framework and the new procedures embodied in the Bill our concern has been to devise arrangements which are workable and as straightforward as is possible but which have a fuller regard for the rights of the individual than is at present the case. It is in no sense our purpose to complicate matters for the person who wishes to put up a building, but we need to have a system which is effective in relation to the proper purposes in building control, which are the health, safety and convenience of everyone. We believe that the Bill will provide a sound basis for the necessary procedural regulations.
It is my intention that all these procedural matters will be discussed in exhaustive detail with the local authorities before regulations are framed, and I have already told the local authority associations that I propose to set up a joint working party.
The main task which we must pursue once the Bill reaches the Statute Book is the preparation of the building standards regulations—the body of standards which will constitute the new building code. The Bill lays down in some detail the procedure to be followed in framing the standards regulations. The Building Standards Advisory Committee must first be consulted about the proposed regulations. A draft of the regulations must then be published. This draft will be given a wide circulation, and full opportunity will be provided for representations. Then a public inquiry must be held, if that is desired by anyone who makes representations and is dissatisfied. On the initial regulations I would, I think, hold a public inquiry in any case.
It is very important that there should be the fullest opportunity for the expression of all relevant points of view before the standards regulations are made, and it is because of this that the Bill includes the specific provisions which I have mentioned. The framing of the regulations is, of necessity, a major undertaking, and, while I do not make any prophecy, I think that it may well take a few years to complete the work. It will, of course, not be until then that the new system of building control will begin to operate.
At the beginning of this afternoon, a number of comments was made by the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) and by other hon. Members about the lack of time or about rushing the Bill through, and I should like to deal with it, as much as anything to show what has happened. I ought to recall, for the record, how we set about framing the provisions of the Bill. As the House knows, the Bill follows very closely the recommendations of the Guest Committee, and I would, now, again, I think, with the agreement of all Members of the House, wish to express our gratitude to Lord Guest and his Committee for the work they did.
The Guest Report was published in October, 1957, and I think it fair to say


that it was given a very wide and general welcome when the Report was published. I proceeded to seek views on it from a wide variety of organisations and bodies —those who were concerned—including the local authority associations. Thereafter, in the light of the views expressed in the Report, we proceeded to work out the general lines of a buildings Bill, based on the recommendations of the Committee. A memorandum with our proposals was circulated to the local authority associations in February, 1958, with an offer of discussions. In the case of the Counties of Cities Association, the memorandum was sent to the four cities.
At the request of the County Councils' Association, detailed discussions were held with representatives of that body at a meeting in March, 1958, and, thereafter, a working party of officials was set up jointly with the Association to consider a variety of detailed points of procedure. The conclusions of the working party were later endorsed by the Association. Discussions, I should emphasise, too, were also held at that stage with the other local authority interests, so far as there was any desire for them. Naturally, these consultations did not range over the many points of relative detail that arose in the drafting of the Bill. I thought it useful, in view of what was said earlier, to say that there have been fairly extensive discussions ever since the publication of the Report, and I must confess that I was rather surprised to be attacked on the speed with which we acted on what is a very important Bill for everybody, since normally the charge against a Government is that it is far too slow.
There may be a balance on these occasions, and I confess, in fairness, that there was rather a short time between Second Reading and the Committee stage for the local authorities to get all the work done, but I do not think that there can be that complaint about the period between the Committee stage and Report. So, too, of course, right back, as I have explained, there have been very full opportunities for discussion and consultation. I think it is something for which we can all claim considerable credit, and I include hon. Members opposite as well, that we have got on with this very important Bill, which has been wanted for a very long time. I do not think that hon. Members would want me to go into much

more detail about the Bill, and I now have great pleasure in recommending it to the House.

10.14 p.m.

Mr. Woodburn: This is an important Bill which is supported from both sides of the House, and any discussion that has taken place, either in Committee or during the Report stage, has been with a view to improving it. Any controversy has arisen because of what has not seemed clear to my hon. Friends, and it is their duty to make matters clear. We are indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) and to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes), who has unfortunately been debarred from taking part in some part of the proceedings owing to illness. My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser), is also prevented by illness from being with us during this stage of our considerations.
I say at once to the Secretary of State that we did not complain only of speed. We were led to believe that there was undue haste. I am glad to have his assurance that the normal procedure of consulting with the local authorities had been followed before the draft of the Bill was presented to the House.
This makes it all the more incomprehensible to us that so many questions about the drafting and wording of the Bill should have come from the local authorities during the Committee stage. If hon. Members have complained about haste and lack of consultation with local authorities, they have done so because they have had rather more than their normal share of complaints from local authorities that certain matters were neglected. That is not usually a complaint to be made against the Scottish Office. Sometimes, we have had the opposite complaint, that there has been so much preparation that we have been faced with practically nothing to discuss which could not be met by consultation with the local authorities, and they had all agreed. As the right hon. Gentleman says, there must be a happy medium between those two extremes.
The Bill is important in that it lays down a national standard. The importance of having national standards is this. The old days of the local builder seem to be passing. He knew all his local standards and knew all the local habits.
Indeed, nobody else knew them, and he had almost a monopoly of knowledge about local standards. Now, we find vast empires in building, people who build on a large scale over the whole of Scotland. It is becoming an obstacle for organisations dealing with things on a large scale that they have to have a vast reference system in order to find out what the local standards are in every respect. As a result, there is very often a lack of standardisation.
One thing we all want is a reduction in building costs. There is something here which always surprises me, and I have mentioned it myself to one of the largest building organisations. I used to think that, once one brought engineers and mass organisation to bear on the building of houses, one would be able to reduce the cost. The curious feature about building is that some of the old builders, who build according to the old-fashioned methods, can beat the big organisations on price. I have never been able to discover why. When we were questioning the builders about the time they were taking to build houses, we made the surprising discovery that practically no builders in Scotland had any idea of the number of man-hours it took to build a house. That would be inconceivable in any other type of industry.
There is a sort of haphazard genius about it. They build a brick wall and then knock holes in it to put the pipes through. They put on the plaster, and then they cut it out to put the electric pipes in. It all seems a most fantastic waste, yet, as I say, people doing that kind of building were, curiously enough, able to undercut the large so-called efficient firms. It is not our business to unravel the mysteries of the building trade, but, if we have a code of building which applies all over Scotland, that will certainly contribute towards the standardisation of materials and methods.
We are glad that all the questions about the local authority laws which authorities want to retain will be cleared up and settled after the Bill has gone through its final stages and before it actually becomes operative. As the

Secretary of State has said, this will mean a delay, perhaps, of two years; but, when we are setting down standards which may last for many generations, it is better to be fairly sure and lay down standards which are likely to be solid and good.
I hope that provision will be made for a certain degree of flexibility. The progress of science today is such that there may be very big developments in the near future. When atomic energy begins to produce electricity during the night which cannot be used at that time, it may be that some of the storage heating arrangements, such as brick storage, underfloor heating or wall storage heating, and so on, will come into use. They would enable heat to be used to warm houses at a time when peak loads are not involved. Therefore, to take account of the great possibilities of science in future, I hope that there will be flexibility and the possibility of adjusting standards to meet new developments.
I congratulate the Government on the conduct of the Bill. As I said in Committee, it was sometimes difficult to realise that we were in the Scottish Standing Committee. For the first time since the Government came to office it appeared that something had come over them. The Government suddenly became reasonable. Instead of wasting hours and days, as we have done during the last five or six years in that Committee, trying to get the Government to accept reasonable propositions and being met with nothing but stonewalling, we found that, somehow or other, on this Bill sweet reason seemed to come into the mind of the Government. We hope that this is not a temporary aberration and that it will be a permanent feature of our discussions in future.
The tendency to reasonableness deteriorated a little during the Report stage of the Bill and perhaps we have not had all the satisfaction which we wished. Nevertheless, I congratulate the Government on the manner in which they have handled the Bill, and I hope that this is a good augury for the future.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

DEER (SCOTLAND) [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to further the conservation and control of red deer in Scotland and for purposes connected therewith, it is expedient to authorize—


A. the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of expenses of the Secretary of State incurred under the said Act;
B. the payment into the Exchequer of sums received under the said Act by the Secretary of State.

Resolution agreed to.

MENTAL HOSPITALS (FARMS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Brooman-White.]

10.22 p.m.

Mr. James Dance: I am grateful for the opportunity of raising what, to some people, may seem to he a rather limited but, to my mind, a very important factor in the treatment of mental sickness. I refer to farms run in connection with mental hospitals.
The policy of the Government has been to get rid of as many of these hospitals as possible. About three years ago, a hospital in my constituency in which I am interested, Barnsley Hall, was, I am glad to say, sympathetically reviewed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Mahon (Mr. Turton). I hope, however, that in view of our new outlook towards mental sickness and the treatment of it, this policy of review and getting rid of such farms will be reversed.
I believe that I am very much in order and in akin with the Report of the Royal Commission on the Law Relating to Mental Illness and Mental Deficiency, 1954–57. Paragraph 293 of page 204 of the Report states:
The rest of our recommendations in this part of our report deal mainly with the special mental health services which are needed to meet the special needs which cannot be met by more general services"—
and now comes the important point—
but all our later recommendations should be read against the background of this general recommendation that the existence of some degree of mental disorder should not exclude any person from any form of care or service from which he can suitably benefit.
These wards back up the view which I am putting forward.
I think that the value of farms is undoubtedly apparent to the layman. It is obviously a good thing that people who suffer from mental sickness should have the peace and comparative quietness of working on the land, and the hard manual work involved is also beneficial.
I have said that that is the layman's point of view, but I am supported by the doctors. As I have said, there is in my constituency an extremely well run mental hospital, Barnsley Hall, which is on the outskirts of Bromsgrove, on the Birmingham road. I have visited that hospital. I have seen the people in it and have spoken to the doctors. Not only do they say a farm is of great value, but they also stress that it is essential for the cure of certain of their patients.
I think this is borne out by what has gone on during the past years. There are now about 50 people employed on this farm, 30 in horticulture and 20 in agriculture, which is about three times more than a few years ago. Therefore, this supports my theory that the doctors are in agreement with the views which I am bringing forward.
In addition to the patients employed on the farm, there is the very great value of this land to the other patients in the hospital. Due to its comparative seclusion, it provides a great recreational space around which other patients can walk, and I believe that it is of great value to them. Besides the 50 people employed on the farm, we have a seasonal increase at the time of harvesting, potato lifting, and so on. One should take that into consideration when viewing the whole matter.
In view of the new approach to mental health, we hope—I think that this is agreed on all sides—to provide a definite cure for some of the sick people. In paragraph 603 (i), the Report of the Royal Commission says:
The aim of hospital treatment or training is to make the patient fit to return to life in the general community.
I feel that the training that these people can receive on these farms is of very great value. I would stress what I said earlier. What better life is there for these people who have had mental sickness than to work on the land, away from the bustle and noise of the factories and the towns? I believe it to be absolutely first-class employment for them.
It would be wrong to ask for the retention of hospital farms which are badly run and where the husbandry is bad. This does not apply to Barnsley Hall, which is extremely well run. It has always made a profit, ranging from £1,000 to


£5,000, I am informed, last year. Consequently, it cannot be said to be inefficient. I know that from the husbandry angle it is extremely well run.
I must be fair to my hon. Friend in respect of these figures and say that there is no payment for patients' labour, but, at the same time, there is no cost to the general public. It has been suggested that these farms should be let in the ordinary way. All I can say is that were the Barnsley Hall farm let it would bring in a far smaller revenue in rent than it is earning at the moment in the profits made by good farming.
That is a minor consideration. What is uppermost in our minds is the healing of the sick people. I would again stress the therapeutic value of these farms. I have referred to Barnsley Hall only because it is in my constituency and because I know it and have spoken to the doctors there. There must be many more hospitals of a similar nature throughout the country, and I am pleading on their behalf too, though, naturally, my greatest desire is to ensure that the hospital in my constituency carries on with its farm.
I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to assure me that these farms will not have to be reviewed every few years, as has happened in the past, but that the people managing the hospital will be able to continue undisturbed in their main task of healing the mentally sick and that those who run the farm will be allowed to continue with the primary idea of good husbandry, namely, continuity.

10.31 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Richard Thompson): The subject of this Adjournment debate is very timely in view of the current interest in mental health and the legislation now before the House.
Two questions arise from what my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Dance) has said tonight—the policy of the Ministry towards farms at mental hospitals in general, and the case of Barnsley Hall in particular. The legal position here is that the Minister has no power to farm as such. The hospital management committee may run a farm only to the extent that it is incidental to the management of its hospitals, and any farming activity having no real con-

nection with the hospitals in the way of providing occupation for the patients or produce for hospital consumption is ruled out by law. A circular which the Ministry issued in 1954 interprets this as meaning that hospital authorities may run farms only in so far as they are an essential part of running hospitals, and that apart from that, the practice should be discontinued.
The general policy towards land around hospitals in excess of the actual site is that it should only be retained for four main reasons: first, reasonable seclusion; secondly, to provide suitable occupation for the patients, which was one of my hon. Friend's points; thirdly, to provide adequate recreational space; and, fourthly, to provide sites for future development, additional building and matters of that kind.
The circular to which I have referred requested regional boards to set up a special committee to visit each farm and, with the hospital management committees concerned, to advise whether the continuance of farming activities and the retention of the land that that involved was justified or not. As a result, considerable progress has been achieved. There have been 210 farms, with a total area of 43,804 acres, surveyed under these arrangements, and, consistent with the policy which I have just described of not retaining farms purely for the purpose of indulging in agriculture, agreement has been reached on 204 of these having a total area of 41,199 acres.
This farmland is being disposed of as follows: 10,094 acres by sale, 9,924 by leasing out, and 7,342 acres by termination of the existing leases. That all adds up to 27,360 acres. It has been agreed that farming will cease at 75 hospitals and will be reduced at a further 72.
My hon. Friend made a considerable point about the therapeutic value of farm work. Of course, there is no doubt about the therapeutic value of social and occupational activities at mental and mental defective hospitals. What we are doing in this respect has recently been producing some very encouraging results, but there is some considerable doubt whether farming is now a wholly suitable form of occupational therapy.
As an expert Departmental Committee which advised the Minister pointed out,


there are two factors at work now which make it harder for patients to work on farms, and which, taken together, have led to an increased employment of skilled paid labour, other than patients. There is, first, the increased mechanisation which, of course, goes with good husbandry today, and which involves the use of intricate machinery which sometimes can be dangerous to people not fully in command of it; and, secondly, the great changes in milk production with consequently fewer openings for patients to be employed on this type of work.
The expert committee found that only 3·3 per cent. of male patients were actually employed on farming proper, while 3·2 per cent. were employed in gardening, and 0·3 per cent. of female patients were employed in farms and gardens combined. The whole percentage of patients in farming and gardening is a small one.
Furthermore, the modern tendency is for patients to receive active treatment. We do not, so to speak, simply keep them under restraint because there is no alternative. The tendency today is to give them active treatment and to keep them in hospital for a relatively short space of time. For patients of this kind farming is unlikely to be appropriate, nor does it meet the needs of the elderly chronic cases, of which we have a considerable number.
Therefore, to run farms for so few patients does seem, in my view, unjustified. We can provide equivalent outdoor work by an extension of market gardening or poultry keeping, and, of course, that has the advantage that it yields products of immediate value to the hospital concerned. These seem to me good and economical ways of using any land kept by the hospitals for amenity or development purposes.
On the financial side, the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Public Accounts Committee had made some comments based on an examination of the farms and gardens account. They had found that a good deal of expenditure was on ornamental gardens, amenity space, things of that kind, which bring in no returns at all. Recently, however, hospitals have kept proper trading accounts, and I agree that these show that farming activities are on balance profitable. Therefore, my hon.
Friend can take it that the reasons for running down the farming activity are not financial but, as I said, in the first place, legal—the Minister has no power to be a farmer; and general—the different needs of patients which I have endeavoured to describe, and the unsuitability of farming work as a general form of activity for all kinds of patients. It is appropriate to some, but not by any means to all.
I said that, having dealt with the general position, I would say something about Barnsley Hall. My hon. Friend will be familiar with the site of this hospital, which is between the Birmingham-Worcester and the Stourbridge-Worcester Roads, a site of about 333 acres. Bath roads, as he will know, are built up, and the hospital estate is thus virtually an island in a built-up area.
In the light of the general policy I have already explained we gave consideration in 1955 to the disposal of approximately the northern half of the estate, consisting mainly of pasture. In the interests of seclusion it was visualised that the land would be leased for farming. My hon. Friend, on behalf of the management committee, argued then very forcefully, as he has argued now, in favour of the retention of the whole estate.
As he mentioned, the whole matter was given close personal attention by the then Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton). He fully recognised the desire of the medical superintendent to keep the farm for therapeutic purposes, and he also took into consideration advice from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, which was to the effect that it was undesirable to split the farm, which, as I said, forms an island site, from the remainder of the hospital estate.
The upshot was that my right hon. Friend decided, in May, 1956, that in the rather special circumstances at Barnsley Hall the farm should be retained subject, as my hon. Friend has said, to the review in three years' time. I want to make the point that the review after a period of three years applied particularly to the Barnsley Hall farm and certainly not to the generality of hospital farms.
In his remarks this evening my hon. Friend anticipated this review, and, frankly, it is impossible for me to give him a final answer on the occasion of this Adjournment debate. But I can assure my hon. Friend that the points he has made so well tonight will be very carefully considered. I think that he will realise from what I have said that there are powerful arguments on the other side, arguments not related solely to finance but to the appropriate treatment of patients today, many of whom we are trying to restore to mental health to enable them to go back to the very occupations which they left and which are often industrial or commercial, in factories or offices and probably not connected with farming at all.
I should like to leave my hon. Friend with the impression that we shall review this matter at the proper time, and, as I have said, very carefully indeed. We shall take into account all that he has

said and the past history of the matter. I think that that is about as far as I can go tonight. I should, however, again say that my right hon. Friend the Minister has no legal power to go into business as a farmer. He can only do it subject to the farming being ancillary to the overall hospital requirement, which must always be the appropriate care and treatment of the patients. It may be that this will be the final determining factor.
I cannot give my hon. Friend a more definitive reply than that tonight, but I certainly think that he has done us a service by drawing attention to the important and useful work that can be done on the farms which, now somewhat run down, are still attached to some of our hospitals and where, particularly in the market gardening activity, there are still good opportunities for that kind of work being continued.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.